Preamble

The House met at halfpast Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BEXLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL

Order for consideration read.

Lords amendments agreed to.

To be read the Third time.

WAYS AND MEANS

CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the City of Westminster Bill, it is expedient to authorise payments into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

RAF St. Mawgan

Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to give financial assistance to the building of an air terminal at the St. Mawgan Royal Air Force air base.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): We expect any proposed development of the civil facilities to be dealt with on a commercial basis.

Mr. Taylor: Does the Minister agree that virtually every economic report on Cornwall has accepted that customs and freight facilities at RAF St. Mawgan are vital to many industrialists in Cornwall and to those who might come to Cornwall? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is unlikely that the Ministry of Defence, which is responsible for RAF Mawgan, will help in that regard, and does he agree that it is important to encourage both customs and freight facilities at RAF St. Mawgan? Will he comment on the fact that aircraft diverted from Plymouth to Newquay because of fog or other adverse weather conditions are currently unable to bring in any freight cargo that they may have on board?

Mr. Bottomley: The most helpful thing that I can say is that I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's comments to my right hon. Friends. They are not matters for the Department of Transport.

Mr. Harris: When my hon. Friend consults other Ministers, will he have a word with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces and persuade that Ministry to scrap the ludicrous proposal to increase landing charges on Brymon, an important regional airline, by no less than 42 per cent. while the runway at St. Mawgan is being repaired?

Mr. Bottomley: The general point about the importance of developing local airports is very well taken. I know that the Ministry of Defence will answer the point relating to its responsibilities.

Cabotage

Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the eventual introduction in the United Kingdom of cabotage in the road haulage and road passenger transport industries; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: We have received nine written representations. I met a deputation from the Transport and General Workers Union on 22 October. I have nothing to add to my reply of 28 October to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Marshall: Does the Minister realise that cabotage poses a threat to jobs in this country, to safety on the roads and to the environment? Has he answered the specific question put to him by the Transport and General Workers Union, and what positive measures will he take to protect jobs and to prevent overloaded lorries, perhaps carrying dangerous substances, battling it out for business on our roads?

Mr. Bottomley: The Government take very seriously the point about enforcing the law, and we hope that the rest of the European Community will do the same. We will agree to cabotage if our operators have free and fair access to the markets of all member states. We have much more to gain than to lose from the liberalisation of cabotage if our hauliers grasp the opportunities.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Nevertheless, will the Minister accept that there is much concern about the approach of cabotage? By the Department of Transport's own admission about 3,000 continental hauliers driving on British roads are found to be overloaded and flouting our safety regulations every year. Given the rules on toxic waste and other dangerous substances, does the Minister accept the need to look carefully at the matter before 1992, to ensure that we protect our citizens, rather than simply benefiting road hauliers who want to travel overseas?

Mr. Bottomley: We do not intend to wait until 1992 to continue to improve our enforcement effort, whether on foreign or domestic hauliers. We do not want different safety standards between now and then. The Polytechnic of Central London report showed that about 1 per cent. of the United Kingdom haulage market was likely to be taken by non-United Kingdom hauliers, whereas if the highly protected German market was opened up 20 per cent. of it could be secured by non-German hauliers. We have more to gain than to lose.

M40 Extension

Mr. Roger King: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the date for the completion of the M40 extension.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): Subject to the outcome of the public inquiry currently under way into the Waterstock-Wendlebury section, I hope that the whole of the M40 from Oxford to Birmingham will be completed during 1991.

Mr. King: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware of the widespread concern felt by many of those living in the midlands and elsewhere about the restrictions that his Department is planning on the lane width of the Wendlebury to Waterstock section of the M40? It is felt that building a two-lane motorway in this day and age is unacceptable in terms of the traffic flows which most people expect on that road. Are the experts who predicted those traffic flows the same as those who predicted traffic flows on the M25?

Mr. Channon: The answer to my hon. Friend's latter point must be no, because it is about 20 years since the

M25 forecasts were made. My hon. Friend asked whether I was well aware of the concern. My goodness me, I certainly am aware of it from my recent visit to Birmingham and other parts of the midlands. Of course I am well aware of that concern. The published proposals are for a dual two-lane motorway, with widened structures at that point. The proposals are currently before the inquiry. I have made no final decision, but shall reach it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in the light of the inspectors' report.

Mr. Boswell: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he accept that even those of us who find that the motorway is to pass through our personal property are anxious that, after this long history of nearly 20 years, work should be pressed ahead as soon as possible, providing a three-lane standard from beginning to end?

Mr. Channon: I get the impression that that is the general view of my hon. Friends. I note what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Fry: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the latest figures on the increased use of our motorways, showing a 17 per cent. increase between the second quarter of 1986 and the second quarter of 1987, bring into doubt, not only the wisdom of having a two-lane M40, but whether the M40 will be sufficient to relieve the already much overcrowded M1?

Mr. Channon: I believe that it will have that effect. My hon. Friend has drawn attention to an important point. I am sure that he will enthusiastically support me when I tell him that there will be a £2 billion programme of new construction for motorways and trunk roads during the next three years.

Air Traffic Control

Mr. Michael Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority to discuss the problems of air traffic control in British airspace.

Mr. Channon: I meet the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority frequently to discuss matters of common interest. I next plan to see him on 16 November.

Mr. Colvin: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the enormous contribution to this country's balance of payments made by civil aviation and of the industry's growth. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that our air traffic control system can cope with that ever-increasing growth? Will he avoid taking any action that will merely add to ATC problems, such as the imposition of an unrealistic night-flying restriction at London's airports?

Mr. Channon: I am well aware of civil aviation's contribution. It has been one of our most successful industries, and I think that that is generally recognised by both sides of the House. Night flights are a different matter. I have sent out consultative documents on this matter in the past few days. I should be interested to have the reactions of my hon. Friend and others to them. As for the general adequacy of the Civil Aviation Authority's ability to deal with air traffic control, the CAA has received investment allocations sufficient to meet planned needs. A total of £125 million has been spent on


improvements to systems over the past five years and the CAA plans to increase the rate of spend in the future. The answer to my hon. Friend's question is, therefore, yes.

Ms. Quin: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is great public disquiet about the crowded air space above London? Does he agree that the best way of tackling the problem is by a planned expansion of Britain's regional airports and better services between the regions and other parts of Europe?

Mr. Channon: There has been rapid growth in Britain's regional airports, and I strongly support their development. There have been outstanding success stories. The air space over London is crowded. The CAA has a duty to deal with that overcrowding. I have outlined the vast sums of money that the CAA is spending and will spend. No sensible proposal from the CAA has ever been turned down by me or by my predecessors.

Mr. Higgins: Does my right hon. Friend accept that air traffic control and the subject of night flying cannot be divorced? Does he agree that it is intolerable that flights landing between 5 am and 6 am should be able to wake potentially millions of people for the benefit of a few hundred passengers? Will he seriously consider restricting landings until 6 am?

Mr. Channon: I believe that when my right hon. Friend studies my detailed consultative proposals he will find much to welcome, particularly the restriction of night flights into Heathrow if the proposals are generally agreed.

Mr. Spearing: Will the Secretary of State raise with the chairman of the CAA the procedures and safety regulations to be adopted by the authority in relation to the new London City airport, which the right hon. Gentleman visited last Thursday? The right hon. Gentleman is directly responsible for these matters in relation to shipping, but with regard to air traffic they are the responsibility of the CAA. Is he aware that vague, bland assurances that cannot be verified are not satisfactory? Will he ensure that the CAA provides facts and figures in answer to questions and letters from hon. Members? Is he aware that if the authority does not do that its sloppy procedures will be made public and open to criticism, and will deserve to be changed?

Mr. Channon: I will, of course, discuss that with the chairman if the hon. Gentleman wishes. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, like me, wishes the airport to be a great success. The CAA assures me that it is wholly satisfied with procedures within the airport and with its operation. It is also evaluating how the airport traffic can be properly integrated in the future, and is satisfied with that aspect.

Mr. McCrindle: In addition to discussing matters of air traffic control, will my right hon. Friend reassure himself in forthcoming meetings with the CAA that related safety matters, such as the provision of smoke hoods and adequate exits from aircraft, are pushed ahead by the authority at all possible speed as it is now some two and a half years since the Manchester disaster?

Mr. Channon: I have, of course, discussed those matters with the chairman, and I shall do so again. With respect, I believe that they go a little wider than the question on the Order Paper. Nevertheless, they are extremely important.

Bus Services (Deregulation)

Mr. Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he is having with London Regional Transport as to the policies to be followed in relation to the deregulation of London bus services.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): I am currently discussing with the chairman new objectives for London Regional Transport for the next three years. I expect those objectives to include reference to our policy of extending the benefits of deregulation to bus users in London.

Mr. Cox: I note that reply, but is the Minister aware of the increasing concern expressed by people in London about the future of their bus services and specifically about the effects of deregulation? Will he assure the House that high on the list of priorities will be the protection of services, the conditions in which staff have to work and the safety of passengers? Will he give an assurance that items of that kind will be discussed in the House and in local communities, and not just with people seeking to run bus services in London?

Mr. Mitchell: I can well understand people in London expressing concern about the bus services and looking forward to the time when they can enjoy the benefits that other parts of the country have had, including the introduction of minibus services, hail-and-ride services and a whole tranche of innovation which London has only just begun to experience. Safety and other matters remain, of course, of prime importance to the Department of Transport.

Mr. Adley: Does my hon. Friend agree that a non-dogmatic view of deregulation suggests that there have been some disadvantages as well as advantages? Before proceeding to consider full deregulation in London, will my right hon. Friend consider the effect of coach deregulation, which has taken away local authorities' power to direct traffic on to particular routes and has led to great parking problems, increased pollution and the use of unsuitable roads? Will he give full consideration to those aspects before reaching a final decision on bus deregulation?

Mr. Mitchell: I hear what my hon. Friend has said and I will consider his point. However, coach deregulation has brought enormous benefits to a large number of our fellow citizens who can now travel at prices that they never dreamt would be possible. Indeed, the competition has sharpened British Rail considerably.

Mr. Foot: Will the Minister be discussing with the management of London Regional Transport the kindred subject of the further introduction of one-man-operated buses? Is it really the management's intention to proceed with that programme? Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that any figures given by LRT showing that such a programme is popular with the public must be cooked? Is it not true that the only purpose of the programme—apart from increasing the jams in London—is to throw a few more people out of work?

Mr. Mitchell: London Regional Transport is not committed to 100 per cent. one-person-operated buses in London, although that is the norm in other major cities in the world. Each major route that is converted to OPO saves £250,000 a year for the ratepayers of London.


Indeed, OPO is safer for the crew because there are fewer assaults on staff and there are also fewer boarding and alighting accidents.

Transport Supplementary Grant

Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will reconsider the guidelines for transport supplementary grant to enable more schemes costing less than £1 million to be supported.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Transport supplementary grant allows extensive support for schemes costing under £1 million. There are no plans to change the grant criteria. A guide to TSG is in the Library.

Mr. Bowis: While accepting that some schemes cost under £1 million, may I ask my hon. Friend to note that most schemes cost more? When schemes have sped traffic through the countryside, it tends to end up in bottlenecks in areas such as mine. Will he therefore reconsider giving more money to small schemes, where comparatively small sums for comparatively small jobs could bring joy unconfined—not to mention transports of delight—to travellers in my part of London?

Mr. Bottomley: We aim to give environmental relief by taking unsuitable traffic off residential roads, by giving greater chance of economic development to badly served areas and by reducing casualties. There are those who want more spent on small schemes, but a significantly greater number want more spent on large schemes. We think that we have the balance right and we have the opportunity to review it each year.

Road Safety

Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further efforts are being made by the Government to reduce road casualties.

Mr. Channon: A major review of road safety has been completed. This makes it clear that we must give priority to those measures which will do most to reduce casualties. That means concentration on urban roads, vehicle design and research into driver behaviour. My target is to reduce annual casualties by one third by the year 2,000—a reduction of 100,000.

Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that some of the appalling carnage that occurs on our roads every week could be greatly reduced, especially on motorways, if advisory speed limit signs were mandatory?

Mr. Channon: That is something that we are discussing with the police. The important point is that whether speed limits are mandatory or advisory people must obey them. They are there for a purpose and those who disobey them are behaving dangerously. Mandatory limits involve police enforcement. Some signs are mandatory, but others are not. The police must decide on the level of enforcement and the priorities that they give to that as opposed to other aspects of motorway enforcement. However, if they decided that that was the priority, I would not stand in the way.

Mr. Cryer: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a major way to improve road safety would be to attract more passengers and freight to the railways? Therefore, will he assure British Rail that he will give it the fullest

support and, in particular, agree to preserve the Settle-Carlisle railway, so that that important and beautiful railway retains full passenger——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is ingenious, but a little wide of the main question.

Mr. William Powell: Does my right hon. Friend accept that drink is a major factor in many accidents on our roads? Will he confirm that, under the existing law, a constable may require a specimen of breath for analysis if there has been an accident, or a moving traffic offence, or if he has reasonable cause to believe that somebody has been drinking? Does he also agree that the courts have held that such reasonable cause need not arise until after a person has finished driving? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the widest possible publicity is given to that provision in our law so that, if random breath tests as such are not acceptable, at least that step, which is little short of it, is well known to the public?

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend has done a useful service in pointing out that fact. He was right on all the points that he raised. In fact, there is considerable misunderstanding about random testing. Police already have wide powers under the legislation. They can stop people at random. They can then test if there is reasonable cause to suspect alcohol in a driver's body, if a moving traffic offence has been committed or if someone is involved in an accident. Two recent cases in Sussex have shown how wide police powers are.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Has the Minister seen the report that Mr. Bill Gillan, the co-ordinator of the Prometheus project into road safety, has told university researchers that there is no point in proceeding with work which does not in some way follow vehicle companies' aims? Is that not crass and insensitive in view of the fact that 2,000 pedestrians were killed last year, that 35 per cent. of deaths on roads involve pedestrians, and that the number is rising? Will he give an assurance that no inhibitions will be placed on any research into road safety under the Prometheus project?

Mr. Channon: I am not in favour of any inhibitions on research into road safety. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about accidents involving pedestrians. In fact, he will be pleased to see that recent figures show that there has been some improvement. There is no need for complacency in the House, but it is extremely important that hon. Members should understand that the 1987 casualty trends are encouraging and that child casualties and motor cyclist casualties are down substantially. In fact, our road safety record is perhaps the least bad in the whole of Europe. I am determined to build on that record, and the House should be aware of it.

Sir Anthony Grant: Although I welcome the fact that our record is not as bad as that in Europe, will my right hon. Friend agree that we cannot afford to be smug when the number of deaths is equivalent to those in a jumbo jet crash every month of every year? Is he aware that a substantial cause of accidents is vehicles, particularly heavy goods vehicles, driving too fast too close behind each other? Is he further aware that there are well known technical means of preventing that? Will he bring in regulations to achieve it as soon as possible?

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. We have had special publicity about keeping one's


distance. I am experimenting with special signs on motorways about keeping one's distance and keeping left except when overtaking. Insufficient attention is paid to that matter on motorways. I shall look into the point that my hon. Friend raised.

Network SouthEast

Mr. Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he proposes to take on the findings of the inquiry conducted by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission into Network SouthEast.

Mr. David Mitchell: I am discussing the report with British Rail, which will be making its formal response in the new year.

Mr. Anderson: The Minister must be aware of the report's key recommendation that substantial new investment is required to resolve the chronic problems of overcrowding, cancellations and unpunctuality which plague 400,000 daily commuters in London and the southeast. Does he propose to ignore the recommendation or sweep it under the carpet?

Mr. Mitchell: It is not for Ministers to propose investment to British Rail; it is for British Rail to propose investment to Ministers. There are no proposals from British Rail that I have turned down that it has not been able to re-present in any acceptable form. The hon. Gentleman may like to know that the average annual investment in British Rail at 1985–86 prices was £112 million in 1970–79, £153 million in 1980–86 and the projected level is £175 million.

Mr. Moate: Does my hon. Friend agree that he has considerable influence with British Rail? Does he accept that there is serious concern about deteriorating standards in the south-east after many years during which services had improved progressively? Will he talk to British Rail about the need to implement some of the recommendations of the report to ensure decent travelling standards for hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens?

Mr. Mitchell: Yes, I shall discuss the report with British Rail and, of course, take account of my hon. Friend's points. However, we are sometimes a little unfair to British Rail and its staff, especially in the Network SouthEast area, because punctuality has increased from 84 per cent. of all trains arriving within five minutes in 1979 to 91 per cent. last year. Reliability has also increased with cancellations decreasing from 4·9, to 1·6 per cent. Several other quality standards have been improved.

Mr. Snape: Does the Minister accept that this is the second such inquiry in seven years and that, like the previous one, the main recommendation of this inquiry has been the need for greater investment in rail services in Network SouthEast? Does he accept that Opposition Members blame, not British Rail and its staff, but the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends?

Mr. Mitchell: It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to seek to do that, but he must know that British Rail proposes investment decisions and that I dispose of them—or, rather, the Secretary of State and I do that—and that in disposing of them I have given approval time after time. I think it is fair to say that no other Minister in a similar period has given as much approval as I have done.

For good measure, I advise the hon. Gentleman that I have just approved £59·5 million for new electric multiple units for the great eastern lines.

Bus Services (Deregulation)

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest information on the effect of deregulation on buses.

Mr. David Mitchell: Bus mileage has increased by almost 12 per cent. over the last year, with 85 per cent. of the mileage now operated on a commercial basis; the number of operators has grown; operating costs and subsidies have been reduced; and the private sector has increased its share of the market.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I welcome the tone of that response and express pleasure especially at the fact that 85 per cent. of road mileage is now supported on a commercially viable basis, but will my hon. Friend comment on what I might describe as predatory subsidies? He may be aware that some local authorities are inserting a subsidised frequency into what was a commercially viable network, thereby destroying that commercial network. That cannot be the object of the Bill nor in the interests of the public at large. Will he also note——

Mr. Speaker: No. The hon. Gentleman should ask only one question.

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend has, with great perception, highlighted an area that causes some concern. If local authorities have so much money that they can afford to waste it by providing duplicate services with existing commercial services, that is a matter for the Audit Commission.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware of the chaos that has been caused by deregulation and the fact that more buses on the road does not mean that there is more efficiency? Is he further aware that, in effect, deregulation means more buses on profitable routes, but fewer on routes that are unprofitable, leaving people in outlying areas, not only in Leicester, but throughout the country, suffering as a result of that profit-based and awful scheme?

Mr. Mitchell: I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman recognises that there are more buses in many of our towns and city centres——

Mr. Janner: Only in the centres.

Mr. Mitchell: I accept what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, but I am sure that he will not object to my saying yes to his question. In rural areas socially necessary services that are not profitable are provided by subsidy from the county or passenger transport executive concerned. They have saved £40 million in providing such services. If there is an area in which and the hon. and learned Gentleman feels that there is some under provision, perhaps a small percentage of that £40 million could be devoted to putting that right.

Mr. Sackville: Does my hon. Friend agree that the deregulation of buses in Greater Manchester has been a success, but that since the control of a major bus operator, Greater Manchester Buses, has been left with local politicians, who have not the first idea of how to run a bus company, the job has been left half finished? When will he


introduce legislation to ensure that management buyouts can take place and control can pass to the employees of municipal bus operators?

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend has referred to the success of bus deregulation in Greater Manchester, and he is right. Greater Manchester Buses has reported that costs per mile have decreased by no less than 23·3 per cent., that miles per employee have increased by up to 23 per cent., that miles per bus have increased by 17 per cent., and that its costs have come tumbling down as a result of improved efficiency. If, on the back of that improved efficiency, there is pressure for a staff buyout, I hope that local politicians will respond to it.

Mr. Snape: Does the Minister accept that over Christmas last year there were no buses in Greater Manchester——

Mr. Sumberg: Or the year before.

Mr. Snape: That is not true.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That was not part of the question.

Mr. Snape: If these interruptions are going to be picked up by Hansard, I hope that for once the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) will get his facts right.
Does the Minister accept that there will be no buses in the west midlands on Christmas day and Boxing day this year, that there will be no train services either and that the main beneficiaries of deregulation in and around our major conurbations are likely to be the manufacturers of breathalysers because of the increase in drink-driving problems that will be caused? The hon. Gentleman, like all Conservative Members, knows the price of anything when it comes to deregulation, hut he has never appreciated the value of services in and around our major conurbations.

Mr. Mitchell: I am glad that this time the hon. Gentleman has chosen to sing that tune and not to say how much the bus staff look forward to having the time off over Christmas. The opportunity was there for the Greater Manchester PTE to seek to have services provided over the Christmas holiday period if it wished. It did not make such arrangements, and that is why the services were not provided.

British Rail

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of British Rail; and what issues were discussed.

Mr. Channon: Last week. We discussed a variety of railway matters.

Mr. Jones: When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of British Rail, will he discuss with him the state of the north Wales railway line between Holyhead and Crewe? Will he stress the importance of that line, not only to passengers, but to industry, in view of the expected increase in the volume of road traffic from January 1988 when B and I shifts part of its operations to the port of Holyhead? Will he use his influence with the chairman of British Rail and urge him to include in his medium-term strategy plans to electrify the north Wales line and in the short term to include plans to upgrade the line and improve the quality of the rolling stock?

Mr. Channon: As the hon. Gentleman asks me to do so, naturally I shall discuss that matter with the chairman of

British Rail, but, as my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out, for any programme of electrification—I know that the hon. Gentleman has been in correspondence about this—it is for British Rail to make proposals to me. I have received none, but naturally I shall be happy to approve any proposal that offers good value for money.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the arguments in favour of electrifying the north Wales railway line have been greatly strengthened by the imminence of the Channel tunnel?

Mr. Channon: I hope that the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend will put those arguments to the chairman of British Rail. I repeat that we shall naturally be happy to accept any proposal that offers good value for money.

Driving Test

Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received the report on the future of the driving test; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I hope to receive a report on the Department's examination of ways of improving the efficiency of the testing system in the next few days.

Mr. Allen: Will the Minister take this opportunity to deny that he is going to privatise the driving test, and ensure that there are sufficient inspectors to undertake it, especially in view of the problems that the trade unions believe there will be with this extension?

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman and I play in the same football team, Mr. Speaker.
I do not think the hon. Gentleman would expect me to prejudge the report. I should be surprised if the trade unions and driving instructors would either. We want better value for money and better services for the customers. Half the 2 million tests conducted each year are taken by people who have already failed the first time. If people prepare themselves properly for the first test, more of them will pass and there will be less of a queue.

Mr. Holt: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not necessary to have a report to know that it is common sense that people should have a secondary test after they have passed the basic test before they are allowed to drive on the major motorways? It is foolish to allow people who have merely passed in daylight on slack roads to go out on major motorways and compete with the traffic thereon. The Government should do something about that now and not wait for any report.

Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend will be interested to know that at about the age of 24 people start to have more accidents and injuries on motorways than on other roads. Most accidents on motorways happen to so-called experienced drivers—usually the 90 per cent. of us who regard ourselves as being in the top 10 per cent. of those with driving skills.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

"Spycatcher"

Mr. Allen: To ask the Attorney-General whether he is considering bringing any prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act arising from the "Spycatcher" episode.

The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): No, Sir.

Mr. Allen: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us why he is not yet prosecuting Lord Rothschild?

The Attorney-General: My answer as to why no prosecution was being brought was given several months ago. To bring such a prosecution would not have been in conformity with the Attorney-General's published guidelines for prosecutors.

Mr. Fallon: Does my right hon. and learned Friend find it extraordinary that, even after yesterday's outrage, the Opposition still do not support the need to uphold the duty of confidentiality of those who work in our security service in order to defend the country from terrorism and subversion?

The Attorney-General: I very much agree with what my hon. Friend has said. There seems to be a certain ambivalence in the attitude of Opposition Members to that litigation. I venture to suggest that if we were not prepared to incur the cost of litigation to uphold the duty to which my hon. Friend has referred, the cost would very soon be more than money.

Project Zircon

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Attorney-General when he expects to reach a decision on the possible prosecution of Mr. Ducan Campbell for alleged breaches of the Official Secrets Act in relation to Project Zircon; and if he will make a statement.

The Attorney-General: In consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions, I expect to have completed my consideration of all relevant matters shortly.

Mr. Dalyell: That was the answer of some months ago. How, in conscience, does the Attorney-General, who, left to himself, is a decent and humane man, justify dithering about a decision that has been awaited for nine months? Why cannot Duncan Campbell be told one way or the other? Why is the BBC still waiting for the return of the Zircon material from the authorities?

The Attorney-General: I am grateful for the compliment, but I must make it clear that in matters affecting my prosecution function I am always left to myself. This is a complex matter in which short-cuts would not have been appropriate. They might even have been criticised by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Sackville: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that any money spent on deterring employees or ex-employees of the security services from betraying the trust placed in them is money well spent? It is important to establish——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Has the hon. Gentleman read the question? It is about Zircon.

"Spycatcher"

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Attorney-General how much in total Her Majesty's Government have allocated for future expenditure on trying to prevent the publication of the book "Spycatcher".

The Attorney-General: No specific amount for future expenditure is allocated in respect of any particular case.

Mr. Winnick: Has Wright expressed his gratitude to the British Government for helping to boost the sale and

publicity of his book? Would not all the public money that has so far been spent, and probably the greater amount that will be spent in future on this farcical exercise, be better spent on scrutinising the security service and having a parliamentary Select Committee reporting on the matter?

The Attorney-General: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind two factors. The first is that in litigation it is the ultimately successful party that is normally awarded costs. Secondly, we are claiming an account of profits against Heinemann and Wright in Australia and against newspapers in New Zealand, Hong Kong and here. If those claims are ultimately successful — [HON. MEMBERS "If".]—that will cause money to flow hack to the Treasury. In those circumstances, I would expect the Opposition, with their notable concern for reducing public expenditure, to rejoice.

Mr. Lawrence: Is my right hon. and learned Friend considering any changes in the law or in the terms of contract of security service men to stop those who may be tempted to betray their country's secrets for money from doing so?

The Attorney-General: The present legislation remains in force and work has been in hand for some time on devising provisions that would be an effective, enforceable and reasonable alternative. This is not without difficulties. As my hon. and learned Friend is aware, the Official Information Bill 1979 was found to be unacceptable, although it closely followed the recommendations of the Franks committee.

Mr. Fraser: As Mr. Wright's disclosures are now about as confidential as a stage whisper, and if the Government are sensitive about the expenditure of public money, why does the Attorney-General not simply pursue Mr. Wright and his publishers for an account of profits? Why is it necessary to proceed with these extraordinarily expensive proceedings in the courts in many countries? The Attorney-General is presently reviewing the legal aid system. Will he be as indulgent to the ordinary citizen pursuing his rights as he is to the Government in pursuing Mr. Wright?

The Attorney-General: By now it must be understood that it is as important to uphold the principle in this jurisdiction, as it is in every other jurisdiction where it proves possible to do so, that when somebody retires from a position in our security service he continues to owe a duty of confidentiality. If the Government do not take all the steps that are properly open to them to enforce that obligation, they will not be able to do so in any subsequent and perhaps even more serious case.

Actions for Discovery (Immunity)

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Attorney-General if he will introduce legislation to confer immunity from actions for discovery in criminal and civil cases upon all correspondence between Members of Parliament and their constituents; and if he will make a statement.

The Attorney-General: I am aware of my hon. Friend's very conscientious efforts to preserve the privacy of certain letters sent to him by a constituent who was to be a witness in a criminal trial. Those letters became the subject of a subpoena issued by the High Court judge trying the case.


Nevertheless, my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is not at present persuaded of any need to change the law in this area, which is of long standing.

Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the case that he has mentioned cost me £2,500 and that that was without choice on my part? Could the same thing not happen to any hon. Member, and would that not effect and inhibit future relations between hon. Members and their constituents? If it did, would my right hon. and learned Friend be kind enough to think again and either seek amendments to the law to give immunity to correspondence between hon. Members and their constituents, or allow reimbursement if a case such as the one that I have just gone through were to occur again?

The Attorney-General: The whole House will have great sympathy for my hon. Friend, but he will know that we are faced with a conflict between two important interests. One is the interest of preserving privacy in correspondence between a constituent and a Member of Parliament, and the other is the importance of not withholding from a court of law material that may be necessary to enable justice to be done in that court. I shall, of course, draw the attention of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor to what my hon. Friend has said, but I should be misleading him if I were to hold out hope of a change in the law.

Judges

Mr. Alex Carlile: To ask the Attorney-General how many High Court judges and circuit judges, respectively, there are currently in England and Wales; if the Lord Chancellor has any proposals for increasing their establishment; and if he will make a statement.

The Attorney-General: As at 1 November there were 79 High Court judges and 394 circuit judges in England and Wales.
An Order in Council has been laid in draft to increase the statutory maximum number of High Court judges from 80 to 85. If it is approved, the Lord Chancellor intends to recommend the appointment of two additional High Court judges as soon as practicable.
The number of circuit judges needed to dispose of the work load is reviewed regularly. The Lord Chancellor recommends such additional appointments as are considered necessary.

Mr. Carlile: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that answer. However, does he agree that there are still far too many people spending far too much time in custody between remand and trial at Crown courts, and that more circuit judges should be appointed from both sides of the legal profession, especially including more women judges, to deal with the cases that are awaiting hearings?

The Attorney-General: My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor makes no distinction between male and female candidates for the bench. He is very anxious to recruit as many as can be recruited without diminishing the judicial quality.
The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that the average waiting time in the Crown court has diminished from 17·3 weeks in 1979 to 12·4 weeks in 1987. I agree that delay is always undesirable. I believe that what I have said about the increase both in the establishment and in the number of judges is reassuring.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Overseas Aid

Miss Lestor: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to reach the United Nations target for aid of 0·7 per cent. of GNP.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has yet set any target date for increasing United Kingdom overseas aid to match United Nations guidelines as a percentage of gross domestic product.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Chris Patten): The Government accept the United Nations target in principle. As with previous Administrations, they have not set a timetable for achieving it, but aid is now planned to grow in real terms.

Miss Lestor: Does the Minister agree that, despite the small increase that was announced last week, the amount of GNP now allocated is still well below what many of our major EEC partners give and well below the amount achieved by the previous Labour Government when they left office in 1979? Would it not be an encouragement to all those working in aid and development if he were able to state categorically that the increase will be maintained and that it will reach the United Nations target within the next year or two?

Mr. Patten: I believe that it should be an encouragement to the sort of people to whom the hon. Lady has referred that, on the figures for this year, the aid budget will be increased by £70 million next year, by £140 million the following year and by a further £185 million the year after that.

Mrs. Ewing: Has the Minister looked at early-day motion 257, which points out that the aid budget has fallen by 15 per cent. since 1979? Why are the Government so loth to set a target? What is the difficulty in naming the date?

Mr. Patten: We take very much the same view as our predecessors about this. I repeat that the aid budget did fall between 1979 and 1982, but since then it has been maintained in real terms, and this year I was extremely pleased that we were able to announce an increase in real terms.

Mr. Soames: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the increases that he has achieved in the aid programme. Does he agree that what matters is not targets but the effectiveness of the aid that is delivered? Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the great burden of the aid that we give will go towards enabling people of the poorer countries to become more self-sufficient and more reliant on their own resources?

Mr. Patten: I agree with my hon. Friend about the quality of our aid programme. I am delighted that, not long ago, the OECD complimented us on the quality of our aid programme and pointed out that 75 per cent. of our aid goes to poor countries, as against an average of about 60 per cent. for other OECD donors. I believe that we should continue to concentrate on the quality and effectiveness of what we are doing.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames)


has just said, it is not so much the volume of the aid as the effectiveness with which it is used that is crucial for development? Does my hon. Friend also agree that it is often much easier for charities and voluntary bodies, which do not have to work through local host Governments and become entangled to the same extent with local bureaucracy, to provide the most effective contribution to development?

Mr. Patten: I wholly agree with what my hon. Friend said. That is why I am pleased that recently we were able to announce a 50 per cent. increase for next year for the joint funding scheme, which assists non-governmental organisations, and why I am also pleased that we have been able to announce an 18 per cent. increase in the amount of money available to help British volunteers to go overseas.

Sir Russell Johnston: While we welcome the increases, we must not forget that they are increases on decreases. Is it not a matter of profound regret that in 1979, when the Government came to power, we gave more in overseas aid than France, Germany, Italy and Canada, and now all of them give more than we do? Is the Minister saying that that means that the quality of their aid has declined?

Mr. Patten: We still have the sixth largest aid programme in the world. It is extremely effective. In 1979 we were undergoing a structural adjustment programme with the support of the International Monetary Fund. Now we are able to go to the IMF and help other countries to go through structural adjustment programmes.

Immunisation

Mr. Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about progress in the UNICEF global immunisation project and the United Kingdom contribution to it.

Mr. Chris Patten: UNICEF says that there is a slow but steady increase in contributions. The British Government have contributed £5·31 million bilaterally to the immunisation programme, and some £2 million through the European Community. Other British contributors, the United Kingdom National Committee for UNICEF and the TUC, have pledged a further £2 million over three years.

Mr. Chapman: I welcome the initiative and the contribution by Her Majesty's Government towards that United Nations special project, which I am sure has universal support, and recognise that the programme to immunise all the world's children against the six preventable diseases must take some years, but will my hon. Friend look sympathetically at the need to announce a five-year special contribution by the United Kingdom Government to ensure that the programme is given that necessary lift and to encourage other countries to follow the lead given by our Government?

Mr. Patten: We shall, of course, consider special appeals by UNICEF. It is important to note that our contribution to the core budget of UNICEF has increased to £7·5 million for next year, which is more than the increase in the rate of inflation. It is also important to remember what we are doing to support primary health care in aid recipient countries, which has a considerable bearing on the problem to which my hon. Friend referred.

Overseas Aid

Mr. Fisher: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of public expenditure was devoted to overseas aid in 1979 and in 1986.

Mr. Chris Patten: In 1979, 1·1 per cent. of public expenditure was devoted to overseas aid. In 1986 the figure was 0·83 per cent.

Mr. Fisher: Does not that decline underline the point that our aid budget is now below the OECD average of 0·36 per cent. and that it has been cut more than any other area of public expenditure apart from housing? Is not that underinvestment in aid morally wrong and economically nonsensical?

Mr. Patten: It is not entirely clear to me which public expenditure programmes the hon. Gentleman thinks should fall as a proportion of public expenditure overall. I am sure that he must have been as delighted by the real terms increase in the aid programme as he was by the real increase in the arts budget.

Mr. Yeo: Does my hon. Friend agree that not only is it welcome that the size of our aid programme is now increasing in real terms and that its effectiveness has been improved in recent years, but that there is a role for this country to play in influencing the policies of other countries? In that context, will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the initiative take by our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in adopting a fresh approach to the debt problem, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa?

Mr. Patten: Thanks to this country's economic strength we have been able to take the initiative in trying to help the most debt-distressed countries in Africa. As my hon. Friend will know, the Chancellor's initiative was endorsed by the Commonwealth Finance Ministers and the Commonwealth Heads of Government.

Sri Lanka

Mr. Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the present level of aid given by Her Majesty's Government to Sri Lanka.

Mr. Chris Patten: In the calendar year 1986 aid to Sri Lanka totalled £13·4million, including expenditure£7·8 of million from the aid and trade provision. An additional £2 million was disbursed by the Commonwealth Development Corporation in that year.

Mr. Cox: I note the Minister's answer, but, in view of the tragic events in Sri Lanka, will fresh aid be given? Is it the Government's policy to work with the Sri Lankan Government to rehabilitate and ensure that confidence returns to that country? Will he, or a representative of his Department, attend the special aid meeting in Paris at the beginning of next month?

Mr. Patten: We have announced a contribution of £1·5 million for immediate relief work in Sri Lanka. Much of it will be disbursed through non-governmental organisations, such as Oxfam. We will be attending the meeting in early December, held under the auspices of the World Bank, when we shall consider what more we can do to help with long-term reconstruction in Sri Lanka. I am sure that we will be in a position to make a substantial contribution.

Terrorist Attack (Enniskillen)

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement on yesterday's terrorist attack at the war memorial in Enniskillen.
This occurred shortly before the parade arrived for the formal wreath-laying ceremony. I should explain to the House that the normal procedure in Enniskillen is that the parade forms up and marches to the war memorial where the act of remembrance takes place and then marches to the cathedral for the Remembrance day service.
At 10 45 am, as spectators were gathering near the war memorial, a bomb exploded in the St. Michael's reading room, outside which a number of people were taking up their normal vantage point. No warning whatsoever had been given. The explosion demolished the gable wall, which fell, crushing the waiting spectators. Eleven people were killed and more than 60 injured. Of the injured, 21 were detained in hospital overnight, of whom five are very seriously injured. Among those killed are three elderly couples, a young nurse, and an off-duty policeman.
I know that I speak on behalf of the whole House in expressing our deepest sympathy to those bereaved and injured, and to all their relatives and friends, at this appalling outrage. I also pay tribute to the absolutely outstanding way in which all the emergency services responded to their terrible task.
It is clear from the location chosen for the bomb and the absence of any warning that those responsible for this monstrous act set out deliberately to kill and maim ordinary members of the public: people from both communities who had come together on a sunday morning, young and old, like thousands upon thousands of others throughout the United Kingdom, to honour the memories of those who had died in two world wars and since. In all the tragedy of the terrorist campaign, this outrage stands out in its awfulness. To perpetrate such an outrage against people, for many of whom the occasion was already one of sorrow and remembrance, betrays a total lack of human feeling. Nor could there have been a more deliberately provocative act, more calculated to stir up sectarian hatred, than this outrage on this special and solemn day.
There is a deep sense of anger and outrage felt throughout Northern Ireland today. I know that many will call for retaliation. I say to them most urgently that they most not be provoked. Further acts of violence will only play into the hands of the terrorists and make more difficult the task of the security forces. What we must do instead is to determine that every possible assistance is given to the RUC and the security forces in their continuing fight against terrorism and in particular to bring those responsible for this atrocious crime to justice, wherever they may be. There must be some who have in the past given tacit support to the terrorists, or who have preferred too often to look the other way, who must be horrified at yesterday's outrage. If they or anybody else have any information at all to identify the culprits, and if their revulsion at this terrible crime is genuine, they must ensure that they give the RUC any help they can, whether by using the confidential telephone or by whatever means they choose.
Since my visit yesterday afternoon to Enniskillen, I have had initial meetings with the Chief Constable and also the General Officer Commanding and the Commander Land Forces. I shall be meeting them on my return to Northern Ireland. In addition, in the light of the serious recent events in security both north and south of the border, and the successful seizure of the major arms shipment and the implications that flow from that, I shall be having further urgent talks with Irish Ministers abut security. In this connection I appreciate the strong message of support and co-operation that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has received from the Taoiseach.
There are those who believe that this latest, most foul attack is a measure of the frustration of the terrorists in the light of the considerable recent successes of the security forces. Whatever their motive, the courage and resourcefulness of the security forces, backed up by the same courage and steadfastness of the community, and aided significantly by international co-operation, have inflicted severe blows on the terrorists. None the less, yesterday's outrage shows the evil threat that they still pose and the vital need for the whole community to continue to stand steadfastly against them.
There are two messages that I wish the House to send today. The first is to the people of Northern Ireland of our resolve to stand firmly with them in the fight against terrorism and to assure them of our full support. The second is to make it clear to the men of violence that no threat or outrage destroys our resolve, but makes us all the more determined to rid the Province of the evil of terrorism.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: The whole nation shares the feeling of revulsion caused by this horrible and obscene act. In the past, even the most barbaric have accepted that people should be allowed to honour their dead in peace. It is particularly horrific when we recall that hon. Members were yesterday before their local cenotaphs, not just honouring the dead but, more particularly, welcoming the reconciliation that there has been since two world wars.
Our sympathy, as expressed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and our prayers go out to the families and the relatives of the bereaved and injured. Those who heard Mr. Wilson, the father of the nurse who died, on the radio this morning could not have had a better or a more moving insight into the personal tragedies that have resulted from this dreadful deed, nor a finer example of Christian charity.
Equally, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is correct to urge that the best method of defeating these men of violence is not by taking retaliatory action or by overreacting, no matter how understandable that may be. We must react with a cold anger, with a determination to support the forces of law and order, and the RUC in particular in its efforts to bring these criminals to justice. In this way we can ensure that the rule of law for which those whom we were all honouring at cenotaphs yesterday, and in particular at Enniskillen, died, is upheld.
We join in the tribute that the Secretary of State paid to the emergency services, in especially tragic circumstances, and to the courage, resolution and determination of the ordinary citizens of Enniskillen, who were faced with tremendous tragedy. Their immediate reaction was to help those who were sick, injured or dead.
There is a particular message that comes from this tragedy. It gives the lie to any suggestion that any Democrat can flirt with those who support the policy of the bomb and the ballot box. For Democrats, it is the ballot box that matters.
The people of Enniskillen have the knowledge of our sympathy and of the resolute determination of the House that they should be able to live their lives secure and in peace. It is our duty to ensure that that is achieved.

Mr. King: I know that the House will appreciate what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has said on behalf of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, on his own behalf and on behalf of his right hon. and hon. Friends generally. I am sure that the House will appreciate especially his comment that no Democrat can flirt with anybody who espouses the cause of terrorism.
Anyone who heard Mr. Wilson this morning—it was one of the most moving broadcasts that I can remember—gained some insight into the amazing courage and wonderful quality of the people of Fermanagh. That came across so clearly in that most moving broadcast.
I think that we in this place can appreciate the horror of this outrage as well as anyone anywhere in the country. Those of us who were involved in Remembrance Day ceremonies in our constituencies saw the sorts of people who were killed in the outrage; for example, parents, old servicemen and others with memories who have regularly attended Remembrance Day occasions. We find that targets for terror are the parents of those with children in the Girl Guides or the Boys' Brigade who go to watch their children take part in a traditional ceremony. I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members will understand all too keenly the appalling nature of this outrage.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: I add my words of congratulation to those that have already been uttered to the emergency services for the way in which they worked in Enniskillen yesterday to bring comfort to the injured and for the way in which they have rallied round the bereaved. I thank right hon. and hon. Members of both sides of the House who this morning offered support to me as well as to my constituents.
I was devastated yesterday by the death of another 11 of my constituents, bringing the total death roll in Fermanagh and South Tyrone to 194, but I was doubly devastated to hear the Secretary of State's statement this afternoon. It is an insult to the House yet again to be offered platitudes. It is a let-down for my suffering people.
All that we have been offered is a further abdication of the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Office and of the Government to the Government of a foreign state. We who live close to the frontier in Northern Ireland realise that if we get any co-operation on security matters from the Irish Republic that is a bonus and is not the basis of proper security for our people. Instead, the basis of proper security lies in the Government's hands. In other words, it is the Government's responsibility.
I remind the Secretary of State that the death toll of 47 in the year before the Anglo-Irish Agreement has now risen by 70 per cent. to 80 this year. We would do better to tell everyone in Northern Ireland, including the SDLP, that they can no longer get away with simple condemnations of violence and that they must accept responsibility for the welfare of the community in which

they live. Will the Secretary of State consider how tragic it is that 169 deaths at the hands of the IRA have resulted in only 14 convictions through the due process of law—a miserable 8 per cent.? Will he therefore not simply encourage, but demand of the SDLP that it turns its words of sympathy into action to protect the people of Northern Ireland?

Mr. King: I know that the whole House will understand the great emotion with which the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) speaks at this moment. We all know the tragic history and the scale of casualties that his constituents have suffered over the years of the terrorist campaign, and this has been a further appalling blow for them. We understand that entirely. Nevertheless, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will fairly recognise the very determined efforts that have been made, and the successes in recent months, in bringing a number of people to justice and in preventing other terrorist incidents—most recently in preventing an attack on the police station at Loughgall, quite close to the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
The hon. Gentleman will have noted that I said in my statement that it was time for everybody to give full support to the RUC and the security forces. I say that very clearly indeed, and look to every party in the House to play its full part. This is a time when there can be no halfway house. There can be no chance of deciding whether to sit on the fence. In the fight against terrorists of such depravity and viciousness, those who are not for us are against us. We need the fullest support of every Democrat in the country and of every Democrat in Northern Ireland, to defeat the terrorists.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Without apology, Mr. Speaker, I rise with deep anguish of heart and deep anger at the massacre that took place in Enniskillen yesterday. As the elected representative of the area in Europe I can also speak in a representative capacity.
I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree with me on one thing, if we agree on nothing else. Someone who has seen a founding member of his own party so brutally murdered, as John Megaw was, and who has visited in hospital members of his congregation who have been barbarously mutilated, must speak with the deepest possible feeling and conviction if there is a spark of manhood in him. If hon. Members wish to condemn the strength of emotion of Northern Ireland representatives, I remind them that I have seen their emotions stirred on other occasions. We feel the same as they would feel. If the House has to receive from Northern Ireland Members some contributions with which it may not agree, it must recognise that as elected representatives we are bound to put to the House the feelings of our constituents.
Is the Secretary of State aware that no amount of condemnation or sympathy from him or the Government whom he represents will allay the real fears of the people in Ulster about the increasing number of IRA terrorist murders in Northern Ireland? The people in Northern Ireland do not want sympathy from the Government or condemnation of this violence. They want action to put this violence down, so that they may live in peace and get on with the ordinary aspects of everyday living.
Does the Secretary of State appreciate the deep anguish of an exasperated population who have seen murder piled upon murder, and massacre piled upon massacre—all


carried out without effective action to stop it? This is not the first time that the Houe has heard a similar statement and similar words of condemnation, yet the violence has increased. Does the Secretary of State not now realise that the Anglo-Irish Agreement has not brought peace, stability and reconcilation, but, rather, has brought polarisation, war and increasing bloodshed and violence?
Will the right hon. Gentleman now consider that the signal failure of the Garda recently to deal with the gang of the so-called "border fox" means that the Garda is likely to give him little assistance when he turns to it at this time for help to put down the IRA? Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that it is an insult, as the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) said, even to mention in the House the help of Mr. Haughey, who helped to spawn the IRA? Anyone who doubts that should read the debates that took place in the Dail in Dublin.
I should like the Secretary of State to explain why the reading room was not searched and why the police were not permitted to search it when they went into the area. Last night, when I was in Enniskillen and visited the hospital, the police put it to me that if they had dared to go into that convent property and put in a sniffer dog they would have been at the receiving end of stiff Nationalist opposition and downright condemnation. The police should have had that building searched, because it was a vital place in which a bomb could be laid. I should like an explanation on behalf of the people of Enniskillen.

Mr. King: No hon. Member will resent the hon. Gentleman expressing his feelings and those of his constituents, however emotionally, in the face of the scale of the tragedy and horror that we are reviewing. It is his duty to put those feelings as clearly as he can. I hope he accepts that it is our duty, as elected representatives and as people in positions of responsibility, to ensure that those emotions that inevitably are aroused by an occasion of this kind are channelled into ways that are genuinely helpful and will not lead to further disillusionment, bitterness and hatred.
Since I prepared this statement—I have not yet had further information about this—I have been informed that a member of the minority community in Belfast was murdered this afternoon. I hope that there is no connection, but, as we all know, it is a clear warning of the tragic and destructive way in which emotions can be aroused.
I have no knowledge that anyone in any sense refused permission to search the reading room. It is the practice, I understand, of the security forces to clear the route and perhaps to examine those buildings that might present a real threat to the security forces. The recent terrorist campaign has been targeted directly against the security forces. To anyone who knew the normal arrangements for the parade at Enniskillen, this building was a place from which ordinary members of the public watched the parade, so there was not much risk to the security forces. I think that that may have been part of the thinking. Awfully, that truth proved correct and it was ordinary members of the public who were killed. Certainly there was no question of a search being forbidden.
In dealing with the challenge of terrorism, one must remember that the parade marches for a mile or more from

the assembly point to the war memorial and the cathedral. Moreover, there is a whole range of Remembrance Day parades in Northern Ireland, so the challenge to the security forces in terms of what is realistically possible is very great. I know that all possible precautions were taken. Indeed, I have spoken to the Army officers concerned, who played a major role in clearing the route before the parade took place.

Mr. David Alton: Will the Secretary of State convey to the relatives of the murdered and the injured the condolences, prayers and sympathy of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself? Does he agree that the most lasting memorial to the innocent victims of the Enniskillen atrocity will be redoubled determination and resolve to strengthen co-operation between the British and Irish Governments?
To that end, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that on 1 December, in the Dail, progress must be made on a full extradition agreement? Does he further agree that there needs to be simultaneous enactment by the Dail and by Westminster of joint anti-terrorist legislation and the establishment of joint courts? Does he also accept that there can be no room for ambiguity about Catholic support for the security services, and that Catholics in Northern Ireland who wish to see an end to violence must desist and support the RUC?

Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks on behalf of his right hon. and hon. Friends and himself. He referred to co-operation. What I believe will come out of the outrage is a better chance of much closer co-operation within Northern Ireland. I believe that many people who perhaps felt that they could somehow stand aside now realise the awfulness of the menace that threatens every decent person in the Province. The universality of condemnation that has come from right across communities leads me to hope that that will be reflected in the strongest support.
I apologise to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) for not replying to his point about co-operation with the Irish Government. Although it is within Northern Ireland that these matters have first to be tackled, the security forces who have had to cope with the challenge of terrorism over the years operate to a highly sophisticated and professional standard and we are, of course, keen to find ways for co-operation with the Garda. If any hon. Member who knows the geography of the island of Ireland seriously suggests that we will make the best progress in fighting terrorism by somehow doing it in separation from, rather than in co-operation with, the Government of the Republic, I must make it very plain that I could not disagree more.
On the need for there to be no hiding place within the island of Ireland, I have made my views very clear as to what I hope will happen. The Irish Government are well aware of our views and it is vital that we stand together.
As we are talking about a European convention, I pay tribute to the international co-operation that we have had, and I believe that it is the countries of Europe in particular that must stand together in the fight against terrorism.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I wish that the distraught and hard-pressed people of Ulster could have heard the warm and supportive words of sympathy from


hon. Members from all parties that greeted me when I arrived at Westminster this morning. It would give them hope for the future.
I preface my question to the Secretary of State by repeating what I have said before—that I hope that there will be no retaliation in Northern Ireland as a result of this obscene act. However, it should be remembered by all hon. Members—and I hope that the Secretary of State will pay the appropriate tribute—that the people of Northern Ireland have for 17 years suffered grievously at the hands of the Provisional IRA, whose systematic, ruthless campaign of murdering Protestant men, women and children has been going on for far too long.
Instead of a war of words from the Despatch Box and press releases from Stormont Castle, will the right hon. Gentleman now wage all-out war against the Provisional IRA? It will not be beaten by any other means, and certainly not by concessions, weaknesses or the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I believe, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman agrees, that in Northern Ireland there must now be a proclamation of martial law, the introduction of identity cards for every person—with fingerprints and photographs stored in a central computer, and anyone moving from an address must notify the authorities—the abolition of the 50 per cent. remission for terrorists who have been sentenced to prison, the restoration of the ordinary remission terms that apply to the remainder of the United Kingdom and the introduction of internment — something with which I disagree, but which is necessary.
The Secretary of State said that there should be no hiding place, but there is a hiding place in the Irish Republic, and there is a hiding place in Northern Ireland. I have been told by police and Army officers that they can identify the IRA men wandering around, but they cannot arrest them because they do not have sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction in court. Those men are planning operations and training youngsters to carry out atrocities, but they can defy the law while walking past police and UDR officers.
Perhaps I have become cynical after 17 years of violence in Northern Ireland, but there is no sign of its coming to an end. The Government, unfortunately, show weakness to the IRA in many ways. May I give the House a prediction? I hope that I am proved wrong, but I believe that within a few weeks — yes, even a few weeks — representatives of Republicans, both north and south of the border, will be engaging in bogus criticism of the police, Army and UDR if they kill or capture some IRA terrorist. Let us ensure that if they make such a criticism, this House will give them its answer.

Mr. King: I very much appreciate the hon. Gentleman's support for the call for no retaliation, which was very well put. He mentioned a number of specific items that he wants to see pursued further. We keep a number of matters regularly under review. I do not propose to comment on any of them today, but I have taken note of the hon. Gentleman's comments.
I was struck by the hon. Gentleman's opening comment about the warmth of welcome and words of sympathy that greeted him when he arrived at the House today. Other hon. Members, especially the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, had a similar experience. The awfulness of this outrage is how counter-productive and stupid it is. The incident has, in fact, drawn together

all those for whom Remembrance Day is a very special day, and the outcome of the incident is that it will enlist substantial support for hon. Members, their constituents and those who have to face the horror of terrorism. In that respect, the whole country has drawn together in its feeling of outrage.

Mr. John Hume: I join other hon. Members in expressing abhorrence at the appalling atrocity yesterday, which was an act of sheer savagery. The choice of the occasion yesterday, when people were commemorating the dead of two world wars, who came from every section of every community of both islands, was cold and calculated and designed to stir and hit the deepest emotions of the Unionist and British people. It was the deepest act of provocation against the Unionist people that has taken place in my lifetime. I sincerely hope that no one will fall into the trap that has been laid by retaliating, because the doctrine of an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind.
This House can do no more today than endorse the Prime Minister's statement yesterday that there should be no hiding place anywhere in these islands for those who committed the atrocity. We should also endorse the Irish Prime Minister's statement that every step should be taken by his Government, together with the British Government, to ensure that those who committed the atrocity are brought to justice.
There is a lesson to be learnt by the representatives of Northern Ireland. It is clear to me, as it must be clear to anyone, that it is the past attitudes in Northern Ireland that have brought us to where we are today. Unless we are prepared to re-examine those attitudes, we will stay the way that we are. If we are to live together, the first lesson that we must learn is that we need each other. We will discover how much we need each other, and how we are to live together, only when we sit down and talk about it.

Mr. King: The whole House will have listened to the hon. Gentleman with great interest. He obviously has an important role to play in the process. If, out of all the misery and tragedy, one benefit might flow, if it brings forward closer co-operation, a united determination to fight against evil men and the commitment of men of good will to work together, that, at least, will be some not entirely tragic epitaph to this awful incident.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Were not the word of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) a welcome lead? However, when he said that the atrocity was deeply provocative to the Unionist people, should he not also have said that it was deeply provocative to Irish people as a whole? At remembrance time at our war memorials, do we not commemorate the many Nationalists who fought and died with our forces?

Mr. King: Of course, I accept what my hon. Friend said. Many from both communities have served and died in two world wars and since, as I said in my statement. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point absolutely clear.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will the Secretary of State accept from my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself our sympathy for the bereaved and injured and our revulsion, shared with people throughout the length and breadth of the realm, at such a cowardly attack upon those gathered to commemorate those who lost their lives in defence of freedom? We note


with satisfaction the right hon. Gentleman's expression of determination to bring to justice those who perpetrated this atrocious deed, wherever they may be.
Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is practical and effective co-operation on the ground between the security forces in the border areas — especially in the light of the report this afternoon of the discovery by the Garda of a battery and command wire connected to an unexploded bomb in Donegal? Does he believe that such co-operative activities can play a more effective role in preventing such a tragedy? We are convinced that terrorism and such acts serve only to strengthen the determination of our people to sustain, or to secure, by democratic means, the peace and government of Northern Ireland.

Mr. King: I make absolutely clear our determination to bring to justice the perpetrators not merely of these crimes but of the other awful crimes that have been committed. I hope that the sheer awfulness of this outrage will assist that process. There will be many for whom it is so intolerable that they may at last, as I said in my statement, abandon what one might see as an ambivalent view and understand the importance of supporting the security forces. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. The cross-border incident is still under investigation. It appears as though it was an attempt to commit another attack at the same time as the attack yesterday. It will be the subject of close co-operation between the Garda and the RUC.

Mr. Alistair Burt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever other motives may have lain behind yesterday's tragedy and outrage, two victories were sought by the perpetrators? The first was an undermining of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and the second was the return of capital punishment for terrorist murders. Will my right hon. Friend set his face against the undermining of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and, from his great office, do his best to urge the House to resist the second, which would give terrorists the propaganda victories which their outrages so deservedly refuse them?

Mr. King: I certainly accept—all my information confirms it—that the people who most fear the Anglo-Irish Agreement are those in the IRA. They will do everything that they can to smash it. They perceive that truth which the House endorsed a few moments ago. I made the point that the greatest threat to them lies in closer co-operation between the two Governments. There may be those critics who do not believe that such co-operation can be achieved, but I trust that nobody will say that co-operation is not a prize well worth striving for.
On the second point, I recall that when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary spoke on the subject of capital punishment he quoted the views of the Chief Constable of the RUC. The Chief Constable made it clear to my right hon. Friend, my predecessor in the office that I now hold, that, in his view and in those of his senior officers, it would make the RUC's task of fighting terrorism more difficult. My right hon. Friend asked me whether that was still the view of the Chief Constable and senior officers, and I confirmed that it was.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Does the Secretary of State accept that the time for the platitudes

of the past 18 years has now expired? Does he also accept that hon. Members have a duty to bring forward, debate and implement political decisions? Is it not our first duty to deprive terrorists of the hope and expectation that they will achieve their objectives? They were given such hope and expectation exactly two years ago. In response to what the Secretary of State said—if I did not misinterpret the words that he used in a broadcast this morning—can we not now get together within the United Kingdom to reverse the disastrous and fatal message of 1985?

Mr. King: I have tried to make it clear to the House already that, with the responsibility that I hold, I should not think it the least bit wise somehow in isolation to seek to pursue the interests of security and to make a real improvement in security in Northern Ireland. From my experience since the Agreement was signed, I strongly believe in the progress that has been made and in the relationships that are being established. In the long term, they can prove to be of great benefit to the people of Northern Ireland and, indeed, of great benefit to the people on both sides of the border in the island of Ireland.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the Secretary of State allow me to record my appreciation of the multiplicity of expressions of condemenation and sympathy from hon. Members during the course of the day about the events that occurred in Enniskillen? It would be difficult for any Northern Ireland hon. Member to go back to the Province unable to carry such messages with him, but will the Secretary of State accept from me that it will be equally difficult to go back to the Province without a message from him that demonstrates a new initiative or a new resolve on the part of the Government to defeat terrorism?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also accept from me that there is a widely held view in Northern Ireland that the doctrine upon which the British Government's security policy is based is that if we take tougher action we might drive Nationalists further towards the IRA? Rather than take tougher action, the Government choose to make concessions to what they describe as constitutional Nationalists, in the hope of winning the Nationalist community away from the IRA.
After Enniskillen, does the Secretary of State accept that that policy does not work? It causes the IRA to step up its campaign of violence and to believe, as it has some justification to do, that more violence brings more concessions. Will he tell us that he is prepared to have a resolute policy against the Provisional IRA which hunts and harries its members, which corners and captures them, and, when they are caught, makes sure that they are sentenced to sentences that fit the crime that they have committed?

Mr. King: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks about the expressions of sympathy that have been given to him. It widely reflects feelings right across the United Kingdom.
On the second point, the hon. Gentleman's criticisms fly totally in the face of the reality of the situation. If he examines the facts he will find that, in terms of losses and casualties, this has been the most serious year for the IRA, certainly in recent times, and that the number of terrorists lost is substantial indeed. We must look at the incidents and the successes of the security forces. In terms of recovered weapons and explosives, prevented attacks and


arrests—including one last night in Belfast in connection with a bomb which, arguably, was destined for the centre of Balfast — the hon. Gentleman will note that the activities of the security forces have been extremely energetic. I certainly give him a clear pledge. We shall not rest until we carry forward the fight. We can point to some successes, but, as I warned the House, we still fight a dangerous, evil adversary. Of our resolution let there be no doubt.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Last night I called on the elderly widowed mother of a former RUC member who was murdered at Enniskillen. She said:
They got him this time.
He has previously been shot and ambushed.
I ask the Secretary of State, on reflecting upon Warrenpoint, Birmingham, Ballykelly and Enniskillen, to undertake to resign if another such incident occurs in Northern Ireland and he fails to take advice from Ulster Unionists. We have been ignored. Our advice is of no account in the House. What do we find? We find that death, murder and maiming continue. In fact, it is escalating. There were two extraditions in the two years prior to the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. No persons have been extradited in the two years since it was signed.
We live on promises. I and my constituents in the east of the Province, and people across the Province, accept the sincere expressions of sympathy and the condemnations of violence and the retaliatory action that we have heard about. I shall be pleased to convey them to those with whom I make contact, but we cannot go on endlessly ignoring the views expressed in the House on behalf of Unionists, who are being selectively butchered and murdered. It is genocide. It is war. The Government have failed miserably to use their power with their own security forces. This summer I visited Cyprus, where I saw an attempt to create a border that appeared to be working. I have travelled almost to Dublin and along many of the byways across the Province, from north to south, but there is no evidence of security. Until attitudes change in the House, and especially that attitude of the Secretary of State and his Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office, regrettably we can look forward to yet another similar incident in the not too distant future.

Mr. King: I would welcome the hon. Gentleman's co-operation, the opportunity to listen to his views on the security situation and to hear any ideas from him. I confirm that my door is open, as are those of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Northern Ireland Office. We are ready to work in any way that we can and to consult Unionists who would like to put forward their views. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my complaint has been the lack of that advice and the lack of Unionists who are willing to put forward their views. It would be overwhelmingly in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland, including those whom the hon. Gentleman represents, if we could work more closely together.

Rev. William McCrea: I join many other hon. Members from Northern Ireland in expressing my appreciation to those who genuinely feel for the deep hurt and anguish of the people of Northern Ireland. I speak as a member of a family that has been savagely hurt during the troubles by the murder gangs of the IRA. I pay tribute to the excellent services of those who assisted and helped

in Enniskillen during the great crisis about which my lion. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) spoke.
Many of the people of Northern Ireland find that much of the sympathy rings hollow when they consider that the troubles have been going on for 19 years. We have listened to expressions of sympathy for 19 years and have been told continually that the resolve to defeat terrorism is there. Surely, after 19 years the Secretary of State must believe that if a policy has not succeeded in destroying the curse of the IRA that policy has failed and needs to be changed. There is nothing wrong in a person admitting that a policy has failed and in realising that life is at stake and that British citizens are suffering. Coffins will be carried out, and when I return to Northern Ireland my constituents along the border will ask not how many expressed sympathy but what the Government are going to do to stop it.
How many more coffins containing the cream of Ulster will have to be carried out before the Government wake up to the fact that one cannot negotiate away terrorism? One cannot defeat terrorism by sitting politicians around a little conference table, as I have heard some hon. Members suggest. It can be defeated only by military means. As is known, we were commemorating previous wars yesterday. The enemy of freedom and liberty was destroyed, not by a little conference, but by military might. Therefore, I ask the Secretary of State what measures he believes will defeat the murderers and bring an end to this tragedy in our Province. When will the Government have the courage to act on the Prime Minister's conviction that the death penalty should be restored in the United Kingdom? With the greatest respect to certain hon. Members who represent seats far away from the murder gangs, I would rather have a dead terrorist any day than a dead British subject who wanted simply to live in peace in the Province.
Is it not interesting that certain hon. Members are missing from their places today? Last week in the Central Lobby of this House those hon. Members greeted with open arms a member of Sinn Fein and his deputation. Is it not hypocrisy that hon. Members on the Labour Front Bench should tell the people of Ulster how sorry they are, when other hon. Members of Her Majesty's Opposition flirt with that terrorist organisation of Sinn Fein? Instead of giving such people the respectability of holding positions in local government, is it not time that Sinn Fein was turfed out? It is time that the House realised that many members of Sinn Fein hold high positions and office in district councils in Northern Ireland with the support of the Social Democratic and Labour party. I name Magherafelt district council and Omagh district council. With the support of the SDLP a member of Sinn Fein was elected to the key position of the chairmanship of the latter council. Let us have a bit of honesty, because the people of Ulster have had the reality of murder and destruction for 19 years.

Mr. King: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have made my views on those who support terrorist organisations absolutely clear. I have made clear also my concern about the present unsatisfactory situation in the council chambers, which we are not prepared to tolerate. Appropriate action needs to be taken.
With the resources and the scale of the involvement of the RUC, the regular Army and the UDR, nobody can


doubt the Government's commitment to providing the resources necessary to the fight against terrorism. Yes, we shall face terrorism with the security forces in every way that we can. However, we should also undermine and wean away those who might be inclined to allow terrorism to continue. That means the greatest effort by all those in Northern Ireland who are in any responsible position to try to show some understanding of and respect for the other community and the two traditions. In that way, they can back up the policing activities of the security forces and give them the support that they deserve.

Mr. Harold McCusker: Is the Secretary of State aware that, if the truth were told, in the aftermath of this latest tragedy the people of Northern Ireland are just as cynical as the House and officials in the Northern Ireland Office, because one tragedy is piled on another, and perhaps therein lies our greatest danger?
On the basis that hope is perhaps one of the ways in which we can avoid retaliation, and that the responsibility for giving that hope must lie with the Secretary of State, what hope can he offer people in the Province this afternoon? What hope can he offer to the people who have said to me, "You are wasting your time going over there. They are not going to listen to you"? When this ritual is over and the dead are buried, it will simply be a matter of my colleagues and I waiting for the next time.

Mr. King: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's first point. I do not think that people in the Province are cynical about what happened yesterday or about what will happen in the future; nor are hon. Members or people in this country cynical in any sense. I agree with Bishop Hannon, the Bishop of Clugher, whom I heard speaking this morning. When asked about the scale of the outrage and the difference that it made he said that every death is a tragedy for the family and relations. Northern Ireland has had to face too many such tragedies. As I said in my statement, I believe that there is something about this incident and its awfulness that will prove hugely counter-productive for the terrorists who perpetrated it. That is my first hope.
Secondly, we are determined, and we are slowly and steadily getting results. It is easy to disparage every success of the security forces, say that it is merely a flash in the pan and point to another murder or atrocity that has been committed, but, considering the figures over the past few years, we can see that there has been an overall improvement. With ever-closer international co-operation, and with a growing and widening realisaton of the evil of terrorism, we can at last see the platform from which the final assault can be made against that evil.

Mr. Ian Gow: Does my right hon. Friend accept that all hon. Members on this side want to associate themselves with his opening statement and hope that no one masquerading under the title of Loyalist will resort to terrorist methods which that person would be the first to condemn when employed by the IRA? Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Anglo-Irish Agreement would never have been signed unless it had been preceded by a prolonged campaign of terrorist violence? As a consequence of that agreement, predictable and predicted, has been still greater terrorist violence, will my right hon. Friend now consider activating article 11 of the agreement?
Is it still my right hon. Friend's belief that it is only by giving the Irish Government the right to put forward views and proposals about the government of Northern Ireland that we can obtain greater co-operation from the Republic for the defeat of terrorism? If that is the continuing belief of my right hon. Friend, would it not be strengthened if the Irish Government had not connived at the payment of ransom money to terrorists, if they had acceded to the European convention on the suppression of terrorism, and if there were greater signs of competence and security on the part of the Garda?

Mr. King: I have no detailed information on that kidnapping, and my hon. Friend will understand why it is not possible for me to comment. I have made my views on the European convention, some would say, abundantly clear. I propose to leave it at that, because I have made my views absolutely clear.
I respect the sincerity with which my hon. Friend holds his view on the Anglo-Irish Agreement, but I believe that the agreement can be of benefit to the people of Northern Ireland. Because it addresses the concerns of the minority, some Unionists think that it is somehow to the disadvantage of the majority. If ever there was a clear illustration of the importance of addressing minority community concerns, this is it. Those who will gain the greatest possible benefit from a minority community that feels that its issues are fairly addressed are the majority community.
I would not consider it appropriate to accelerate the review period for the conference, which will come at the end of three years.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On behalf of my hon. Friends in the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, may I also extend our sympathy to the families and friends of the maimed, dead and injured in Enniskillen? As constitutional Nationalists, we have always believed that constitutional change can come only through the ballot box and democratic negotiations. We have always said categorically that violence, far from advancing a cause, devalues the principles of freedom and democracy. Therefore, we shall support all steps that will bring this problem to the negotiating table, both cross-boundary and internationally.

Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, speaking with her particular insight and from her particular viewpoint, for her clear endorsement of the constitutional path for any Nationalist politics. The House will have listened with respect to what she said.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Important though the matter is, I must bear in mind that we have another debate ahead of us. I shall allow two further questions from each side.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: May I ask my right hon. Friend, whose personal agony the House will understand, some questions which I know to be in the minds of those to whom we are now looking—the men and women of the RUC—not only to catch the butchers of Enniskillen, but to prevent a bloody backlash from the majority community.
First, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the professional and technical support from the Garda are sufficient? If not, will he take what steps he can to improve them? Secondly, will he seek to ensure that more Army


support, particularly in the form of helicopters is available to the RUC? Thirdly, will he re-examine the Prevention of Terrorism Act to see whether it is right to include some form of preventive detention so that men who have killed and whom the police know will kill again are not free to walk the streets of Belfast and plan further attrocities? Finally, will my right hon. Friend consider publishing through British posts abroad a brochure setting out the true horror of Enniskillen, with photographs, so that those who misguidedly provide money and arms to support terrorists will recognise the full horror of what they are doing?

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. He referred to a potential backlash, but I am sure that there is no question of that. The Unionist community is most courageous and resilient and I have absolute confidence in the steadfastness of a people who have shown such courage in the face of such provocation. Nevertheless, a few on the margin could cause serious damage.
My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment on the technical support and back-up from the Garda, but I take careful note of what he said. He will understand that we, particularly my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, take a particularly close interest in his view. We have increased the number of helicopter hours, and we shall certainly keep that under review. I am grateful for the support of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on that.
My hon. Friend raised the fundamental issue of preventive detention. That is something that we keep under review, and we have always made it clear that we shall keep it under review. The House knows of its difficult history, but the power remains in certain circumstances for the Government to invoke it if they thought it right to do so. 
My hon. Friend referred to increasing international understanding of the real awfulness of the terrorist threat. The House will have seen the message to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister from the President of the United States, showing clearly American understanding of this matter, and I shall certainly take up my hon. Friend's helpful suggestion.

Mr. David Winnick: May I support one of the points made by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), namely, the need for British missions to do more in European countries and the United States to publicise the horror of what occurred yesterday? Is it not encouraging that the Soviet Union has made the response that it has done, bearing in mind that until now it has painted a somewhat distorted picture of what has been happening in Northern Ireland?

Mr. King: I believe that I am right in saying—hon. Members may correct me if I am wrong—that this is the first occasion on which the Soviet Union has made such a comment. It is significant and, clearly, did not happen by accident.
A most significant step, to which I attach importance and in which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is closely involved, is European co-operation in the fight against terrorism. The development of this co-operative approach is of enormous importance. Anybody who studies recent events and issues, such as arms availability

and procurement, knows the international nature of the challenge of terrorism and the need for international co-operation between democratic states to fight it.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, at our Remembrance service yesterday in Cambridge, we also honoured and remembered the tens of thousands of young men of all Ireland who served and suffered in the British armed forces in two world wars—with my father in the first and my brothers in the second? They fought together for the cause of democracy. Is he also aware that the agony of the people of Enniskillen is our agony, and that their cause is our cause? Has not this barbarous act demonstrated that we are at war together again against another tyranny, that of terrorism?
Is it not time that all the British people and Irish people realised the mortal peril to both nations—a peril that must be fought and defeated? Surely, in the exigencies of war, some of the constraints that we have in times of peace must be reviewed.

Mr. King: The House will appreciate the eloquent way in which my hon. Friend put his very personal feelings about Remembrance day and the people from both our islands who fought and lost their lives in the cause of freedom.
I also take note of my hon. Friend's other comments. We shall take all the necessary and possible steps that we believe could be helpful in the fight against terrorism. I choose my words carefully, and the House will understand why. Let no country doubt our resolution in this matter.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: When I was elected to this House I was proud, for two reasons. First, I was proud to have been elected to the mother of Parliaments; and, secondly, I was proud to represent my 60,000 constituents. I came here with high hopes to listen to the mother of Parliaments, but unfortunately, since I was elected in 1983, and through all the tragedies, murders and bombings that have taken place in Northern Ireland in that time, I have found the House wanting. I have found that it is not capable of restoring their British citizenship to the British citizens in Northern Ireland. The House does not seem capable — with all the power that it has throughout the world—to restore peace and security to the people of Northern Ireland.
It is said that politicians merely talk, and I have heard politicians talking here again today. The people of Northern Ireland do not want talk. They want action to restore the peace and stability that have been promised them by this House. I reliase that those who exercise power have a tremendous responsibility. However, sometimes when I look at Conservative Members a certain amount of time after the beginning of questions or a debate, I see them seeming to relax and saying to themselves that that little bit is over and they can look forward to getting back to normal business.
The real tragedy is that 11 people will be buried, and a greater tragedy is that others will follow them. What message will the Secretary of State give to my constituents, who phoned me continually for two hours yesterday evening, about the action that will be taken to resolve the position?

Mr. King: I have tried to give the House those messages today as clearly as I can. I hope that the hon. Gentleman


will study what I have said and see that the path we must follow is that of co-operation in Northern Ireland and internationally, and of determination together in the face of terrorism. That offers us the best prospect of the improvement that the hon. Gentleman longs for.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must tell hon. Members whom I have not been able to include in the questions on the statement that I shall bear in mind their position when we come to Thursday's questions on Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland (Terrorism)

Rev. Ian Paisley: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the increase of IRA terrorism in Ulster and the massacre at Enniskillen yesterday.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that I must not argue the case, but simply establish to the House that an important and specific matter should have its consideration, but I want to give the House some facts to establish that. In Northern Ireland there were 47 murders in 1984, in 1985 there were 86, and this year—I hope that all hon. Members will listen carefully—there have been 79 deaths. Two thirds of the deaths of which the Army was accused were resolved in the courts in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Of the 22 deaths of which Protestants were accused, 11 were resolved. Of the 169 of which the IRA was accused, only 14 have been resolved. Those figures speak for themselves.
The House would do well to hold a proper debate on this matter so that the views of hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies, and those of all hon. Members, could be heard. I trust that if you. Mr. Speaker, cannot see your way to accepting what I propose today, we may have a proper, full-scale debate on this urgent matter at a future time.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the increase of IRA terrorism in Ulster and the massacre in Enniskillen yesterday.
I have listened with great concern to what the hon. Gentleman had to say and, indeed, to Question Time, which has now continued for well over an hour. As the hon. Gentleman — and the House — knows, my only consideration when looking at a Standing Order No. 20 application is to see whether it meets the criteria laid down in the Standing Orders. I regret that I cannot find the matter appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20, and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Ordered,
That European Community Document No. 8845/87 on toy safety be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.
That European Community Document No. 11063/86 (Part 3) on pre-packaged liquids (bottle sizes) be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Orders of the Day — Licensing Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second Lime.
It happens quite often that the House moves from dramatic business to ordinary business—we have a way of doing that. It is particularly difficult to do so this afternoon because of the tragedy we have just been discussing, and the way in which everyone, including those who have some personal knowledge of Enniskillen and its people, joins in the sadness and anger that have been expressed. However, the people of Northern Ireland have to carry on their ordinary lives today—that is one of the badges of their courage—and we have no option but to do the same.
Over the past 30 years the English pub has become a much more cheerful and welcoming place. I do not suppose that that fact has been recorded anywhere in Hansard, but it certainly should be on the record. Here and there we complain about the architecture and the furnishings, or we press for better beer, but the improvements in style, standards of food and friendliness, and the general feel of pubs, are among the most striking social changes in our cities, towns and villages since the war. The pub, with its range of food and soft drinks as well as alcohol, now compares favourably with the average French, Italian or American bar.
There is one considerable oddity. On a normal weekday a pub is compelled to stay shut between 3 pm and 5.30 pm. The central purpose of this relatively modest Bill is to put that right and to open up the forbidden afternoon. Clause 1 will allow licensed premises to open from 11 am to 11 pm, thus removing the present restriction on afternoon opening from public houses, hotels, wine bars and other licensed premises as well as registered clubs. There is, of course, no requirement to open for longer hours; the provision really removes the obligation to close.
I cannot think that anyone settling down to devise a system for regulating the consumption of alcohol would light upon our present law as a sensible way of doing so. It is worth looking for a moment at the origin of the law. Through the 18th and 19th centuries there were various attempts to control drinking hours, but they were almost entirely directed at keeping drinking places closed on Sundays. The substantial legislation of 1872 and 1874 left it possible for a public house to remain open on weekdays for up to 19½ hours. The position changed dramatically as a result of the growth of the temperance movement, its links with the Liberal party and, above all, the conclusion reached during the great war that too much drinking was harming the production of munitions and was thus a threat to national security, especially near war establishments and naval ports. The forbidden afternoon which we are now proposing to abolish was established for that wartime purpose in 1915.
Much has changed since then. I cannot see why it is acceptable to drink at lunchtime, wicked to drink in the afternoon and acceptable to drink again in the evening.

We must remember that most drinking nowadays does not take place in public houses. Scottish evidence suggests that less than one third of drinking takes place in pubs. It is perfectly possible for someone to walk into a supermarket and load himself up with liquor to be consumed at any hour that he wishes. I would guess—though it can only be a guess—that someone is, on the whole, more likely to drink himself into a state of violence or ill-health or misery or nuisance to others if he drinks outside a pub than if he drinks sociably in one. Let me make it clear that it is no part of the Government's case that alcohol abuse does not exist or that it is not serious.

Mr. Donald Anderson: As a result of what the Home Secretary calls this modest measure, does he expect alcohol consumption to increase or decrease?

Mr. Hurd: The Scottish evidence on that point shows that the extension of opening hours does not add to the dangers of misuse. I shall come to that in a moment. The hon. Gentleman has fired his shot a little too early.
As any Home Secretary must know, alcohol abuse is a serious and continuing threat to the individual and to society. I shall shortly examine what we arc doing about it. If I felt that by opening up the afternoon in the way that we propose we were increasing the dangers of alcohol abuse, I would not move the Second Reading of the Bill and we would not have put it in our manifesto. The evidence does not support such a fear. Let us look at the position in Scotland where afternoon pub opening is not, in effect, forbidden.
Since the Scottish Act of 1976 came into force there has been widespread use of extensions to allow licensed premises to open during the afternoon. Incidentally, this gives some indication of the demand from the public.
I now come to the matter raised by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). Total consumption of alcohol by men in Scotland determined by surveys by the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys did not differ significantly before and after the 1976 Act, although the average time spent drinking increased by over an hour. There was a significant increase in the consumption of alcohol by women who drank for an average of one and a half hours longer. However, in view of the figures for men, the OPCS concluded that this seems more likely to be due to changes in attitudes towards women drinking and is unlikely to be a consequence of the changed law. It is also worth noting that only 18 per cent. of women did most of their drinking in public houses.

Mr. Tony Favell: There has been much correspondence about the increased consumption of alcohol by women following the relaxation of the licensing laws in Scotland. It would help the House a great deal if my right hon. Friend would tell us whether there is any evidence about what has happened during the same period in England and Wales.

Mr. Hurd: I do not have that figure, but I shall ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to supply it if he can when he replies to the debate. As I have said, there is no reason to suppose that the clear increase in Scotland in the total consumption of alcohol by women is related to the change in the licensing laws — especially when one considers, as I have said, that less than one fifth of Scottish women do most of their drinking in public houses.
Figures for drunkenness offences in Scotland show little change, either in the number of offences recorded or the


charges proved, before and after the passage of the Scottish Act. The statistics for drunk-driving offences do not provide any evidence that flexible licensing hours have had any significant effect. Because of changes in recording and procedures, the figures are not easy to interpret. Police procedures have changed during this time. If anything, there appears to be little change in the trend in Scotland and an increase during the same period in England and Wales.

Dr. Lewis Moonie: The Minister mentioned two matters. He said that no danger had resulted from the change in Scotland and that there has been no difference in convictions for drunken driving. How does he explain the fact that the peak for drunk driving in Scotland occurs in the late afternoon which is not the case in England and Wales?

Mr. Hurd: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures before and after the change in the licensing hours, he will see that he will be unable to show that there is any relationship between the incidence of drunk driving in Scotland and the change in the licensing law. As I have said, he will find that, although the trend in England and Wales was upwards in this period, there has been little change in the trend in Scotland.

Sir Philip Goodhart: My right hon. Friend will be aware that some road safety organisations are worried that the Bill may increase the amount of drinking and driving. He will also be aware that they consider that as a quid pro quo there should be a clear Government statement allowing random breath testing. Could he touch on that?

Mr. Hurd: I shall cover that aspect later. I was speaking about the evidence from Scotland. It is true that alcohol-related health problems have for a long time been higher in Scotland than in England and Wales, but the proportionate increase since the Scottish Act was passed in 1976 has been smaller in Scotland than in England and Wales. A study by Edinburgh university looked at all these figures. The study was published in the British Medical Jounal in 1986 and concluded:
in relation to health, the new Scottish licensing arrangements can be viewed neither as a source of harm nor as a source of benefit. They have in effect been neutral".

Sir Bernard Braine: No improvement.

Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend is correct; there has been no improvement. I do not claim that the change in the licensing laws in Scotland secured an improvement. Equally, there is no evidence to show that they brought about a deterioration. Our conclusions from the Scottish evidence is that there is a demand for pubs to be able to open in the afternoon and there is no evidence to show that if they do so there will be a harmful effect on society or that it will, in itself, lead to further misuse of alcohol.
It seems that, although people may drink over a slightly longer period, they do so in a more leisurely manner without increasing their total consumption. I fully recognise, of course, that there are dangers in making too close a comparison of different parts of the kingdom. We are not saying that the changes in Scotland have led us to introduce changes in England and Wales, but rather that

the evidence from Scotland has not produced findings that suggest we should not make the changes contemplated in this Bill.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I share the view of the Home Secretary that the Scottish evidence is wholly inconclusive. Why did the Home Office statement of 30 October assert that the Scottish experience demonstrates that there would be no change in drinking habits, just a more leisurely approach to drinking?

Mr. Hurd: I have been through the evidence. I am not claiming that and nor did the statement to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. There are no inconsistencies. I am not claiming, and nor does the statement, that the Scottish experience suggests that there has been an improvement. I am saying, as did the statement, that the effect is neutral. There is no evidence from Scotland which would lead anyone to argue against the change proposed in the Bill.
It was no doubt with these thoughts in mind that the British Medical Association wrote to us on 15 October, concluding:
While opposed to any action which might lead to a significant increase in alcohol consumption in this country, the Association accepts the modest changes proposed in the Home Office Consultation Document, including those designed to bring opening hours for on-licensed premises more into line with those of off-licensed outlets.
A little earlier, the Royal College of General Practitioners wrote to us with the following conclusion:
The College believes that a liberalisation in drinking hours should be supported with the aim of reducing the image of the bar as a place to drink, to get drunk and quickly. We believe that such liberalisation would encourage the image of alcohol being incidental for the consumption of snacks and meals and also as an incidental in places where coffee, tea and soft drinks are also sold.
Those are the reactions of two substantial medical groups to our proposals. There have been other reactions, but I am simply trying to nail any suggestion that medical opinion is united against the Bill. Two prestigious and substantial organisations have written to the Home Office, rather unusually, in substantial support of our proposals.

Dr. Moonie: rose——

Mr. Hurd: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman and I do not intend to do so again. He has already shot his bolt. That is his concern.
Clause 2 is a safety net provision.

Mr. Charles Morrison: My right hon. Friend has made an eloquent case for greater flexibility of opening hours on weekdays, but, before he finishes dealing with clause I, will he explain why he has not made the same decision in regard to opening hours on Sundays?

Mr. Hurd: I know my hon. Friend's views on this matter. I shall give what I hope he will not regard as too crude an answer. I want to get this Bill through. I do not want to overload it with a new argument which I know, from scars that I carry, arouses serious and emotional division on both sides of the House. That is a frank answer.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Does my right hon. Friend realise that being timid in this matter has not significantly lessened opposition to the principles of the Bill? This is an important point for many rural areas involved in the tourist trade. Does my right hon. Friend


recognise the need for more flexible licensing, as in Scotland, to cater for the circumstances of particular areas?

Mr. Hurd: If my hon. Friend and others support the Bill in sufficient numbers, no doubt this is a point which he will wish to raise in Committee, but I must quarrel—

Mr. Hattersley: rose——

Mr. Hurd: I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman when I have answered my hon. Friend's question. I do not agree with the analysis of my hon. Friend. The provisions in this Bill have been substantially welcomed. Since we published our proposals, the opposition to them has been considerably more muted than I had expected and I believe that that illustrates the basic good sense of what we propose.

Mr. Hattersley: Can we get this absolutely and categorically clear? Is the Home Secretary saying that if the Bill receives a Second Reading there will be an opportunity for it to be amended in Committee to allow Sunday opening? Is the answer to that question yes or no?

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman has made an entirely bogus point. If the Bill gets a Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman will, of course, be able to move such an amendment should he wish and so will any other member of the Committee. That is so.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he would vote against an attempt to extend the Bill to Sundays?

Mr. Hurd: I am not. I am simply stating facts.
I made it clear in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) why I do not believe it would be sensible to overload the Bill. However, my hon. Friend is perfectly entitled to make his point in Committee, should he wish.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hurd: May I move on a little?

Mr Kellett-Bowman: rose——

Mr. Hurd: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: If such a misguided amendment were brought forward to try to include Sundays in the Bill, may we have an assurance from my right hon. Friend that he would not back such a move?

Mr. Hurd: I have already stated why I believe that it would be a mistake to overload the Bill by including such a provision. I am glad that I gave sway to my hon. Friend because I believe that she supplied the necessary counter-balanced to the enthusiasm of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson). I have given three answers to this question and I wish to move on.
Clause 2 is a safety net, which, we hope will be unnecessary. However, in case the relaxation of licensing hours in the afternoon gives rise to unforeseen problems of annoyance, disturbance or disorderly conduct, we have made provision for restriction orders whereby the licensing justice, or the magistrates' court in the case of registered clubs, can reimpose closure for all or part of the afternoon break.
I do not believe that the House would want me to describe at length the other, mainly streamlining, procedural provisions of the Bill. They are designed to ease

unnecessary burdens on the courts and licensees and remove some of the anomalies that have come to light in the existing legislation.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: If the Home Secretary does not intend to deal in detail with the various points, will he say something about clause 10? It appears that those who traditionally have a right to object to a licence will now face the possibility of being saddled with court costs. Surely that greatly undermines a person's freedom to object — a freedom which exists in every other area including planning procedures. Would my right hon. Friend be willing to reconsider this matter in Committee, because it means that individuals are deprived or are put at risk if they put forward what they regard as a valid objection?

Mr. Hurd: I believe that it is a reasonable proposal, but I note what my hon. Friend has said. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary may wish to deal with that in greater detail when he replies, but if my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) is a member of the Committee he may wish to bring that matter forward.
I should like to return to the question of alcohol abuse because I believe that part of the early opposition to the Bill—as I have said, the opposition has been less fierce than I expected—came from a feeling that we were not sufficiently alert to this evil. I hope that we have shown otherwise. The House will have welcomed the decision of the Prime Minister to ask my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal to chair a new ministerial group on alcohol misuse. Perhaps I should make it clear to the House that it is a standing group and it is not its intention, as has been suggested, to work towards the production of a single report.
The group had its first meeting recently. Its aims are, as the published terms of reference made clear, to pull together the activities already undertaken by Government, by the drinks industry, by voluntary and other bodies as part of a general strategy for combating the misuse of alcohol. The group will look at priorities in the allocation of resources, it will be open to new ideas for remedying misuse and will seek to arrange for the better co-ordination of policy.
Young people have already been identified by the group as a priority. Indeed before the formation of the ministerial group, a working party was set up under the chairmanship of Baroness Masham to examine the part that alcohol plays in the commission of crime by young people and the problem of under-age drinking. The working party will present its report soon to the standing conference on crime prevention, which meets under the auspices of the Home Office. Obviously we in the Home Office will examine the report from the crime prevention angle and the Lord Privy Seal's group will, as part of its new remit, consider at its next meeting the working party's recommendations.

Mr. Graham Allen: Does the Home Secretary accept that the evidence relating to crime and other aspects in the Bill is not inconclusive, but rather contradictory? Does he therefore agree that tonight would be an ideal opportunity to put his weight behind a move to suggest that the Bill be considered by a Special Standing Committee for a period of one or two months before going on to Committee?

Mr. Merlyn Rees: A Select Committee?

Mr. Allen: No, a Special Standing Committee. That Committee would ensure that all the evidence could be considered before the Bill reached Committee.

Mr. Hurd: We have opened up this subject for wide consultation. I have already said that it was contained in the election manifesto. Indeed, I believe that, in August, we published an outline of our proposals. There has been a long time for discussion and examination of the proposals by interested groups. Indeed, those groups, as one would expect and hope, have come forward with their proposals. Although this is not a matter for me but for the House, I would not wish to press that such a procedure as a Special Standing Committee was necessary on this occasion.
A great deal of welcome activity on alcohol abuse is undertaken by probation services, the voluntary sector and other organisations. For example, I recently visited an interesting project in Coventry where, since February, a team led by the chamber of commerce and including representatives from the city council, the licensed trade and the police have been looking closely at the problems caused by irresponsible drinking in the city centre. The team has proposed a number of measures which it is hoped will go a good way to reducing those problems.
Misuse takes many damaging forms, but I suppose that drunk driving comes to public attention most often. As regards the Bill, the figures from Scotland for pedestrian casualties, child casualties, and pedal cyclist casualties during peak times all show that the proportion involved in drink-driving accidents decreased between 1975 and 1985, which covers the time when restrictions on the licensing hours in Scotland were relaxed. There is, thus, no evidence to link extended licensing hours with an increase in drunken driving or in road casualties. However, I accept that the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) went wider than that.
On the general problem of drink-driving, the Government and police forces are taking effective action. The police carried out 300,000 breath tests last year, and the Government's publicity campaign to persuade everybody that drinking and driving do not mix continues. Police powers are important as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham has said and we have considered carefully the calls for random breath testing. In fact, existing police powers are more substantial than is usually recognised. It is not always known—indeed, I am not sure that the Opposition have hauled this on board—that the police may use their general power under section 159 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 to stop any vehicle at random to decide whether there are grounds for requiring a breath test under section 7 of the Act.

Mr. Robin Corbett: We are aware of that.

Mr. Hurd: Well, sometimes the Opposition carry on and make public statements as if they were not aware that the police already have substantial powers.
Section 7 requires reasonable grounds, before testing, to suspect that the motorist has alcohol in his body or has committed a moving traffic offence or has been involved in an accident. Thus, the law as it stands permits random stopping though not random testing. In practice the police

are content with this and the Association of Chief Police Officers stated that it sees no need for wider powers. However, the door is not closed on our search for better ways of tackling this problem.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does the Home Secretary agree that the case in the House of Lords the other day—I forget the name—that has called into question the use of intoximeters may well cause some difficulties for the police force? Would he care to reconsider that matter and rectify the decision in that case?

Mr. Hurd: It is partly with a recollection of that decision — the hon. Gentleman is shrewd to draw attention to it—that I said that the search for effective ways of dealing with the problem must go on. The doors cannot be closed.
To conclude, I believe that this is a common sense Bill designed to remove an absurdity that has come into our law as a result of history rather than logic——

Mr. Stan Crowther: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hurd: No, I shall not give way, because I am coming to a conclusion and I have given way a great deal.
The British Tourist Authority has estimated that the relaxation of hours provided by the Bill will provide an additional 50,000 jobs, mainly part-time and in catering. I cannot vouch for that figure, but I do not doubt that there will be significant additional employment. This is not a Bill to please foreign tourists, although there is nothing wrong with doing that. Let us remember than most of the tourists in our country are British. Let us concentrate by all means on real ways of dealing with the dangers and miseries of alcohol abuse. Meanwhile, let us remove the irritation and absurdity of the forbidden afternoon from our statute book.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: The Labour party is to have a free vote on the Bill, so I can do no more and no better than to offer the House my own judgment rather than my party's opinions and policies. It is not an altogether unique experience for me and I know that advantages and penalties are in that course. The advantages allow me to say things about policy that I dare not and would not say were the imprimatur of Walworth road to be stamped upon them.
To begin with, the Home Secretary told us about the improved conditions in public houses in the United Kingdom. I do not now when he was last in an inner-city public house and what his experience of inner-city public houses is this year compared with 1975 or 1965, but were he ever to take a Sunday morning pint outside Oxfordshire his judgment about the conditions in British public houses might be significantly different.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman talked about history. I confess that my preparations for the debate were enormously interrupted by reading Morley's "The Life of Gladstone" and the Gladstone diaries for the period of the first licensing Bill. I shall give only two quotations from what I learnt. First, Mr. Gladstone did not regard the subject of licensing hours as appropriate for debate between gentlemen, which at least allows me, if not the Home Secretary, to continue. Secondly, after his defeat in the 1870s, he remarked that the Tory party was invariably washed to power on a sea of gin and beer.
Perhaps more important than that was what the Home Secretary said about Sunday. With the freedom of the free vote that is to follow, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that I am a great deal more relaxed than some hon. Members about Sunday opening. I am also a great deal more relaxed about Sunday trading, which I may have the opportunity to debate as the year goes on.
There is no doubt from what the right hon. Gentleman has said—he should not deceive the House; not by intention, but by some other means—that if the Bill is given its Second Reading, it will pave the way for Sunday opening. Hon. Members will take their own view on whether that is desirable or undesirable, but, judging by what the Home Secretary said, there is no doubt that that is what is prepared for in the Bill.

Mr. Crowther: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a considerable distinction to be drawn between the matter covered by the Bill, which is essentially a leisure activity, and ordinary retail trading, which clearly is not? Is it not illogical to exclude from leisure activities the one afternoon on which most people have the most leisure?

Mr. Hattersley: I have considerable sympathy for what my hon. Friend says. I hedged it about in terms that I hoped would not be revealed until my hon. Friend asked that question, but I have that sympathy. Irrespective of my personal position, hon. Members should not vote for the Bill under any misapprehension. If the Bill is given a Second Reading, there will be pressure for Sunday opening and, sooner or later, that pressure will be irresistible. However, that is not the central issue of the debate, although it was inevitably raised by the Home Secretary. The central issues are whether we want more drinking, whether we want what I regard as the inevitability of extra drinking and whether there are penalties to be paid for that.
We should understand that the debate will be dominated by speakers who are, as the Under-Secretary of State described them on 30 October, "responsible drinkers". Most speakers will be in that category. In the context of the debate, I believe that "responsible drinker" is a most dangerous animal, for the responsible drinker — I flatter myself by saying that I am among that number — is far too often incapable of facing and understanding the real dangers of alcohol abuse and over consumption. Were some of those who will speak in the debate offered cannabis, they would be frightened as well as offended, but, were they offered alcohol, they would take it as the normal round of social intercourse. There has never been a candidate for judicial office, either in the United States of America or in Great Britain, who has withdrawn his nomination because, as an undergraduate, he experimented with alcohol. In Great Britain, alcohol is the acceptable addiction of the middle classes and most of us in the House—[HON. MEMBERS:"Oh."]—

Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, in the context of what he has just said, that there is an organisation in the House called the all-party clubs group, which represents working men's clubs, with some 6 million members, a large part of whose enjoyment derives from consuming alcohol in the privacy of their clubs?

Mr. Hattersley: Of course. Nothing that I have said in any way undervalues or contradicts that. I am saying that

most hon. Members who speak for liberties and freedom will represent the acceptable addiction of the middle classes. If the hon. Gentleman wants to qualify that to refer instead to the acceptable addiction of the whole British population, I shall not argue with him. I say simply that we should debate licensing laws in the knowledge that most of us, by our upbringing and cultural background, are prejudiced in favour of alcohol in a way that makes us less than wholly unbiased on the subject.
Notwithstanding that, I make no apology for, or qualification about, my support for the general principle of more liberal licensing laws. I support that principle because I am opposed to the intrusion of the state into the private lives of its citizens, except when it is absolutely necessary in order to support and protect the welfare of society as a whole. However, we cannot support extensions of freedom for one group that imperil the interests—indeed the lives, in some particulars—of another group.
That is why the Home Secretary supports, in defiance and contradiction of the libertarian bodies, stop-and-search powers, tougher gun laws and the prohibition of knife sales. It is why the Prime Minister argues with the libertarian lobby which wants fewer police powers by saying that there is a freedom to be protected against burglary, mugging and assault.
The right to be defended against the penalties of extended freedoms offered to a single and specific group must be applied to the provisions of the Bill. The problem with the Bill is that it provides extra opportunities for drinking among a limited group of people. I support those opportunities, but the Bill provides none of the safeguards that should accompany those extra opportunities and protect the interests of society. The necessary safeguards concern far more fundamental matters than disorderly conduct in an individual public house, with the disadvantage and detriment to the neighbourhood, which are dealt with in clause 2.
We need safeguards that are intended to reduce the amount of alcohol-related crime. We need safeguards to reduce the amount of drunken driving. Above all, we need safeguards to ensure that afternoon drinking does not produce an even greater problem of alcohol addiction among teenagers and the very young.
The need for some safeguard is not in dispute. The facts of alcohol abuse demonstrate the need. For example, 45 per cent. of all violent crime in Great Britain is alcohol related—that is 50 per cent. of murders and 25 per cent. of child abuse cases. Each year there are between 1,400 and 1,500 road deaths caused by some form of alcohol abuse, and between 8 million and 14 million working days each year are lost through absenteeism caused by drunkenness.
The most important and terrifying figures are those revealed by the Health Education Authority survey which revealed a terrifying increase in drinking, not only among teenagers but among children. Thirty per cent. of the children aged between 11 and 12 who answered the questionnaire said that they had had some experience of alcohol during the previous seven days. That figure demonstrates the need for the most important safeguard if there is to be an extension of licensing hours. With juvenile drinking such a growing problem in society, it seems absurd that so much money and television time should be spent on advertising alcohol and promoting its sale. I can only support a relaxation of licensing hours


—although I support the general principle—if there are much more stringent controls over television advertising than the IBA is now able to manage and organise.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: My right hon. Friend is right to emphasise the increase in drinking among children and women, but there is evidence that this is not related to pubs and to pub opening hours and that we should be examining the huge number of supermarket and off-licence outlets.

Mr. Hattersley: I support my hon. Friend's view. If the Government brought in a Bill to relax the sale of alcohol in supermarkets and chain stores, I should have reservations about that, too, if it were not accompanied by a crackdown on television advertising which pretends that the nature of the good life — of social and economic success — depends on regular drinking. We have to debate what is before us and we are debating the relaxation of licensing hours without any of the safeguards which I consider would make such a relaxation possible.

Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree, however, that he is wrong to claim that there are no safeguards in the Bill? Clause 2(2) gives just the safeguard that he wishes to see. If, as a result of afternoon drinking through the extended hours to which he referred, there is a nuisance or disorder, redress is given to apply for a restriction order which would close that pub for all or part of that afternoon period for up to 12 months.

Mr. Hattersley: I have been a neighbour of the hon. Gentleman for nearly 10 years and I should have known better than to give way to him. I dealt specifically with that point 10 minutes ago. I shall now explain it slowly for the hon. Gentleman. If a pub opens and causes nuisance to its neighbours, the licensing justices can take action against it. That is an admirable safeguard for neighbours. If that pub is full of teenagers drinking silently but to excess every afternoon, the licensing justices can do nothing whatsoever. I am more concerned about teenagers drinking silently to excess, than about the annoyance to the families on either side of a public house.
I shall now pursue the real argument, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do his best to follow. For drunken driving, juvenile drinking, and the cost to the Health Service and to the economy of alcohol abuse over the past five years, the Government have offered nothing but platitudes and promises.
That is why, before I examine the safeguards that should be put in place, I wish to ask the Home Secretary about his timing and tactics. I hope that the Under-Secretary will answer my simple questions when he replies. Why are the Government in such a hurry and why do they support their case with such dubious arguments? Two months ago, the Wakeham committee was set up with the widest possible terms of reference. Its duty was
to review and develop the Government's strategy for combating the misuse of alcohol.
I was told by the office of the Leader of the House that there is a chance that the first of the Wakeham committee's casual reports will be made some time in the new year. It is extraordinary—indeed, it is irresponsible—that we should have the Bill to extend licensing hours first and the report into alcohol abuse later. Will the Under-Secretary of State explain the timing to us?
Another question on timing relates to the activities of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport. No one can complain that he does not report frequently. He seems to report all the time—usually on television and radio—and his reports make the flesh creep in a variety of ways. Sometimes he draws attention to accident statistics. Sometimes he suggests bizarre penalties, such as making publicans responsible in law for damage caused by drivers whom they have served with alcohol. All that he does is tell us about the terrible road safety problems caused by alcohol, that something must be done about it and that he will do things of which he has not yet conceived. But all that the Government do is extend the licensing hours without implementing, or considering or recommending the implementation, of any of the things which the Under-Secretary of State for Transport constantly tells us must be done. Why do the Government wish to alter the licensing laws before they have received reports on the problem of alcohol abuse?

Mr. James Couchman: The right hon. Gentleman has accused the Government of acting in haste, but it is about 15 years since the Auld committee reported. That report has been gathering dust on the shelf ever since. It is 10 years since the Clayson reforms were implemented in Scotland. We must have had enough time to study the position.

Mr. Hattersley: During that period, alcohol abuse, alcohol-related crime and juvenile addiction have increased. All the problems have intensified. The Erroll committee offered a much more comprehensive answer to the problems than a simple manipulation of the licensing laws. Indeed, the Erroll committee convinced at least one right hon. Member that there should be a comprehensive examination of alcohol abuse and the licensing laws, which is the proposition that I make today. That right hon. Member was the former Secretary of State for Social Services, who is now Secretary of State for Employment. Had there been such a comprehensive examination, many Opposition Members would have been much more sympathetic to the Home Secretary's proposals.

Mr. Allen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this would be an ideal Bill to refer to a Special Standing Committee so that we could hear evidence from expert witnesses for a few weeks or months? Will he support me and my colleagues when we move that such a procedure be adopted?

Mr. Hattersley: It would be the ideal procedure, and I wish that I had thought of it. This is a proper Bill for a free vote of hon. Members. If it is a matter for individual judgment, it is ideal for the type of investigation which my hon. Friend described. There is general agreement that the Home Secretary's consultation period was woefully short. But the Government will vote against my hon. Friend's proposal because, as I understand from my conversation with the brewers a fortnight ago, they have been promised that the Bill will be law soon after Christmas. I doubt Whether the Home Secretary would agree to such a procedure, but the Under-Secretary of State can tell me later whether I am wrong.
The Government have used strange arguments to justify the Bill. The main argument on which they rest their case is that the relaxation of licensing hours will not result in an increased consumption of alcohol. On 30 October,


the Under-Secretary of State, in his exuberance, speaking for the entire British population and interpreting the national psychology in a single sentence, said:
People will exercise the freedom that this Bill will bring not by drinking more but by adopting a more leisurely approach to drinking.

Mr. Anderson: My right hon. Friend will recall that in their 1981 policy statement, entitled "Drinking Sensibly", the Government concluded:
Available evidence suggests that licensing restrictions may have a broad influence on both the level of average consumption per head of alcohol and the influence of alcohol-related harm.
Nothing that the Home Secretary said today suggests anything to the contrary. Would it not be appropriate for the Government to provide us with the evidence on which they changed their mind?

Mr. Hattersley: The main change is that the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) arrived at the Home Office and, with that natural exuberance, announced his judgment on the conduct and character of the entire British people. Today the Home Secretary was much more cautious; he said that there was no evidence either way. The Under-Secretary of State was given the onerous and unpleasant task of announcing the Government's certain view——

Mr. Roger Gale: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: No, I will not.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): Is the right hon. Gentleman frightened to give way?

Mr. Hattersley: The Minister is right: I am terrified out of my wits by the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale).
If there will be no increase in the consumption of alcohol, why are the brewers so keen that the Bill should be passed? What is more, if there is no increase in the consumption of alcohol, how will the brewers finance the extra 25,000 jobs which they say will be the product of the Bill? The claim that there will be no extra drinking is wholly implausible. To their credit, the brewers make no such categorical suggestion. They say that there will be no additional alcohol abuse, which is open to some argument. The Government, in the form of the Under-Secretary of State, say that there will be no extra drinking. As I understand it, the Government base their claim on the Scottish experience following relaxation in 1976.

Mr. Michael Colvin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: Not for the moment. I have given way a great deal. Hon. Members will wish to make their own speeches, and I must bring mine to a speedy end.
The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys considered the Scottish experience, and its conclusions were quoted by the Home Secretary. He said:
There is no evidence that the 1976 Act has caused an increase in alcohol consumption." — [Official Report, 4 February 1986; Vol. 91, c. 102.]
That must mean that the conclusions to be drawn from the operation of the 1976 Act are neutral. The Home Secretary has no reason to assume, demonstrate or argue that that

Act proves that a change in licensing laws will not increase consumption. He can conclude only that no evidence in either direction is available from the operation of that Act.
Those who support the Bill with less discrimination than the Home Secretary showed today have chosen to take the evidence of what happened in Scotland to suggest that a relaxation of the law will certainly not increase drinking and might reduce its overall incidence.

Mr. Gale: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Favell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: No, I will not give way.
Such a conclusion from the Scottish experience is justified only by a misuse of the available statistics. The available statistics from Scotland prove, first, that alcohol consumption among women has increased. I ask the Secretary of State—yes or no?

Mr. Hurd: Less than one fifth in pubs.

Mr. Hattersley: In other words, it has increased. Secondly, the statistics prove that alcohol consumption among men in general has not reduced but has remained steady, largely because the consumption among the unemployed has fallen as unemployment has increased and the purchasing power of the unemployed has fallen.
The statistics also prove a third point and, if the Home Secretary wants to contradict me, as he did a moment ago, I will gladly give way to him. Thirdly, convictions for drunkenness in Scotland have fallen largely because of changes in prosecution practice following the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 rather than changes in drinking habits. Whatever else one may say about the Scottish evidence, none of it is strong enough to justify any additional extension of the licensing laws in Scotland or anywhere else.

Mr. Gale: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: No.
The reasonable conclusion of the experience from this country and others must be that extra drinking hours mean extra drinking, particularly among vulnerable groups. I make no apology for bringing to mind at once the unemployed teenagers in my constituency who have nowhere to go, nothing to do and little hope. If the Bill becomes law, we will find that the public houses of Sparkbrook, not at all the welcome hostelries that the Home Secretary tried to describe 40 minutes ago, will be open to them during their long and desperate afternoons.
We ought not to comfort ourselves, as I fear the Home Secretary tried to do, with the pretence that the longer hours allowed under clause I will not become universal. The brewers are changing the clause in their contracts with tenants that requires those tenants to be open at all permissible hours, but that clause is likely to remain in the contracts of licensed managers and, more important, the pressure on public houses from brewers, users and every sort of group able to exert pressure is likely to mean that every public house will open for the full 12 hours. It only needs a public house around the corner to open for managers, licensees or tenants to know that if they do not open, they will lose business that they cannot afford to lose.
I suppose the Home Secretary has read the explicit and precise evidence of Clayson that, whenever there is a


permissible increase in opening hours, that permission becomes the universally applied rule. I have no doubt that that will happen here.

Mr. Peter Hardy: rose——

Mr. Hattersley: I really must continue and I hope that my hon. Friend and hon. Gentlemen will forgive me.
The conclusion that it is a virtual certainty that there will be additional drinking leads some of those who are most concerned with alcohol abuse—for example, the campaign Alcohol Concern—to to insist that restrictions on opening hours are necessary and should be a permanent safeguard. That is not my view. Safeguards other than restrictions in opening hours would be far more effective and far more acceptable in a free society.
I should like to see longer opening hours and more effective safeguards of a different sort. Were those more effective safeguards in place, I would vote for the relaxation in opening hours that the Home Secretary has proposed. For example, I think that we need a general and widespread use of the random breath test. We understand perfectly well section 159 of the Road Traffic Act 1972. It is a question not of the stopping of drivers but of the certainty of the testing of drivers. The Home Secretary knows as well as I do that the most dangerous driver is the man who says, "I may be above the limit but because I can hold my liquor, I will not commit a traffic offence and therefore I will not be breathalysed." That driver has to be convinced that, even if he believes, rightly or wrongly, that he can hold his liquor, if he drives while over the alcohol limit he may be stopped at random and be breathalysed. That will be the greatest inhibition on over-limit drinking that it is possible to imagine. Were that provision general within the United Kingdom, that would substantially cut road deaths.
We need a more effective programme of education about the problems associated with alcohol and we need far fewer advertisements pretending that alcohol is inevitably and irrevocably associated with economic and social success. We need the brewers to commit themselves to a real campaign, not simply to keep under-age drinkers out of public houses, but to reduce the drinking of alcohol by teenagers in general. Perhaps we should make low-alcohol or alcohol-free drinks a compulsory feature of every public house so that it is possible for teenagers to go into public houses to socialise without being forced to booze.
Most important, we need a drive by the Government, that the Opposition would gladly support, to try to explain to the population that alcohol, whether used moderately or not, is not the pattern and model of the good life, that it carries with it severe penalties and that nobody should use it without being conscious of those penalties.
Were those safeguards on offer and were they firm, definite and certain, I should gladly vote for the Bill, for my instincts are against extended controls over licensing hours. As I half hinted earlier, I would vote for more extensive relaxations of opening hours, but, as the Government choose to relax licensing laws without providing any of the alternative and, in my view, necessary and much more effective safeguards, I shall vote against the Bill, and I urge other hon. Members to do the same.

Sir Bernard Braine: This modest measure can be properly judged only against the changes, for good or for ill, that have taken place since the Licensing Act 1961.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is inclined to speak as if licensing restrictions have remained unaltered since the first world war. That is not so. The Bill is not the beginning of liberalisation of permitted hours, but a continuation of a process of weakening control. The 1961 Act was hailed as a measure that would set the people free. I know — I was here at the time. The Government spokesman who wound up the Third Reading debate became quite lyrical. He ended with a quotation:
Now is the time to drink. Now is the time to stamp the floor with the feet of freedom".
It seemed quite right at the time to take that view, because the Ministry of Health was claiming that alcohol abuse was not a problem. Indeed, at that time we had a national reputation for sobriety. The question is: what has happened since 1961? It can be answered quite simply. We have seen a doubling of alcohol consumption and with it more than a doubling of alcohol-related harm. The situation deteriorated so rapidly that in 1972 Sir Keith Joseph, who was then the Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, invited me to become chairman of the National Council for Alcoholism, because in his view alcohol abuse had already become a major problem. He told me that if I agreed to do the job he would find the resources. I accepted the challenge, and successive Governments kept faith with me by finding increased resources, at least until the late 1970s. Those of us who have worked in this area know that in Britain, as elsewhere in the world, increased consumption means increased harm. The clarion call in 1961 may have been, "Now is the time to drink," but it has led to an appalling state of affairs.
Consider the facts. For the first time in this century, 16-year-old boys are more likely than middle-aged men to be convicted of offences of drunkenness. Under-age drunkenness has increased ninefold. In 1965, under-21s accounted for one in 12 of all drunkenness offences, and by 1985 they accounted for one in four. Goodness knows what the figure is now.

Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sir Bernard Braine: No, I shall not give way to my hon. Friend. If he has the opportunity to speak in this debate, I hope that he will declare his interest in these matters.
The Blennerhassett committee, in reviewing the reasons for the declining effectiveness of drink-drive legislation, pointed to increasing alcohol consumption as a major factor. Alcohol is a contributory factor in one out of three domestic accidents, in four out of every 10 fires, in one in five deaths from drowning and in two thirds of all attempted suicides. Alcohol abuse by a parent is one of the major reasons for children being taken into care. One in three divorce petitions cite excessive drinking as a contributory factor.
The link between alcohol and crime, especially violent crime, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) made clear, is indisputable. One in five of our hospital beds is occupied by a patient with an alcohol-related disease. It is clear that that fact was in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State


for Social Services when, at the Conservative party conference at Blackpool, he referred to the enormous saving of Health Service resources that would be achieved if the problem of alcohol abuse were to be brought under control.
According to the royal medical colleges, alcohol is responsible for thousands of premature deaths each year and is the third largest killer after cancer and heart disease. We do not hear the Department of Health and Social Security saying now that there is less alcohol abuse in England and Wales than there was in the restrictive 1950s.
Contrary to the claim advanced constantly by the drink industry, alcohol problems are by no means restricted to a small minority of alcoholics. The levels of consumption that are known to cause medical and social damage are substantially lower than those required to produce alcoholism. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) was responsible for the nation's health — my right hon. Friend is now the Secretary of State for Employment—he said:
The problems of alcohol abuse are not those of a small minority. We are not concerned solely with those whose lives have been totally destroyed by drink … or with the problems of liver cirrhosis or alcohol psychosis … They arc a tiny part of the total problem although they are also useful indications of trends in the overall size of alcohol misuse in our society.
Precisely. I hope that that statement will be accepted as a definitive rebuttal of the myth assiduously cultivated by those with a vested interest in the sale of alcohol that its victims are only a tiny minority.
How do the Government respond to this appalling state of affairs? Do they bring before us a Bill to end the scandal of under-age drinking or to reduce the carnage on the roads by introducing random breath tests? Do they introduce stringent controls on advertising? No, they do none of those things. Instead, they have introduced the modest measure that is now before us, the sole purpose of which is to increase the sale of alcohol.
Those who claim that licensing controls are irrelevant to alcohol abuse, or even counter-productive, should explain why all the indices of alcohol-related harm have increased steeply since the 1961 Act ushered in an era of increasing alcohol availability.
We have been told in the past, and no doubt we shall be told again—there have been some interventions on this issue already—that the Scottish experiment proves that licensing restrictions can be loosened without a harmful effect. In reality, the evidence from Scotland is ambiguous, inconclusive and quite insufficient to give the green light to further liberalisation in England and Wales. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has conceded as much. The idea that Scotland is now largely free of the sort of alcohol-related violence and disorder that previously disfigured it is another myth.
An article that appeared in The Daily Telegraph of 26 October stated:
Inside a young girl is pinned to the wall by a big angry drunk wielding a long knife. Another girl is grabbed by the throat while a clean-cut, sober-suited young man tries to wrestle her attacker to the ground … This is Edinburgh Royal Infirmary's accident and emergency unit—Britain's biggest and busiest and arguably fast becoming the most dangerous and violent.
Said a young registrar, 'You'd he a fool not to expect violence any night of the week here … It is no longer a question of whether you will be assaulted on duty but when. A lot of medical students coming here are terrified. They are not taught to cope with the drunkenness and violence …

Something like 80 per cent. of all the patients we see in here at night have alcohol on board. Fifty to 60 per cent. of those can best be described as legless.'
That was said by a registrar of a fine hospital in the capital city of Scotland, where no one, we gather, is very sure of what happened as a result of the 1976 Act. The consultant in charge was reported as saying:
The genuinely ill are having their treatment compromised by rampaging drunks.
If that is Scotland after the supposed benefits of liberalisation, I shudder to think what it was like before.
England is not to be compared with Scotland. In considering the Bill, it is what we know has happened in England and Wales that matters. The 1961 liberalisation coincided with rising living standards. Both factors worked together to increase consumption, and with this to increase harm. The consequences of further liberalisation in England and Wales must be assessed also against the background painted by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, presenting us with the happy news of increasing real incomes. The drinks trade claims that the Bill will create 50,000 additional jobs—three cheers! — but that in itself must lead inevitably to increased consumption. It is inevitable, too, that that will lead to increased harm.
I must be fair to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and accept that he had to respond to the commitment that was set out in the manifesto to introduce a Bill to liberalise the licensing legislation. I accept also that there may be practical reasons for introducing this measure early in the new Session. I recognise, too, that my right hon. Friend has moved some way towards the amendments that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and I tabled to the Bill that was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) in the last Parliament. For example, my right hon. Friend has accepted 11 pm as the closing hour, and that is excellent as far as it goes. That was also reflected in the Conservative party's manifesto, which promised that a Conservative Government would
keep a sensible limit on late-night opening".
I am pleased about that.
That is something that must not be forgotten by my right hon. Friend, nor by those who seek to become members of the Committee that will consider this measure. I trust that my right hon. Friend will vigorously resist any attempt to introduce a later closing hour. To do otherwise would be to renege on our electoral commitment and go against public opinion. A MORI poll conducted over the past few weeks has shown that 61 per cent. of the population oppose public houses remaining open until midnight, and there is similar opposition to extended hours on Sundays.
I welcome, too, the provision to allow licensing justices or magistrates courts to exercise discretion in granting special hours certificates and to attach limitations to them. This reform is long overdue. The proposals for the administration of licensing committees will, I know, be welcomed by the justices' clerks. However, the Government should reconsider the proposals to award costs. We should take account of the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) on this issue. By giving powers to award costs against objectors the Bill does not reflect what the Justices' Clerks Society wanted, and it is likely to deter residents from objecting. That is not sensible, it is not just and the proposal should be changed.
Nor do I approve of the dismantling of a 70-year-old safeguard, the afternoon break. Without doubt, this break has helped to make British pubs the orderly and pleasant places that many of them are. Many licensees I know want the afternoon break to be retained. They work damned hard, as do their wives, and they deserve this break. Whether they will be allowed to have it if the Bill is enacted, bearing in mind all the pressures that will exist, is another matter. It is ironic that, just when the Government are introducing a Bill to destroy the afternoon break, the New Zealand Ministry of Justice is recommending the introduction of an afternoon break for the first time in that country's history, precisely because it has concluded that the break here has helped to advance sobriety in this country.
Hon. Members will have received a personal communication from the Campaign against Drinking and Driving, a group which represents the innocent victims of alcohol-related road crashes. The campaign's anxieties regarding the Bill's likely effects on road safety — particularly the fear that it will increase the number of' alcohol-related road casualties during the afternoon — must be taken seriously. This is, after all, a matter of life and death. Unfortunately, it does not seem to me that the Government are taking it at all seriously, although I look forward to hearing what they have to say.
The consultative document promised that one of the grounds for the imposition of a restriction order on afternoon opening would be public safety. The licensing justices could impose restriction orders if they were convinced that all-day drinking had contributed to increased deaths and injuries on the roads. However, the Bill contains no such provision. Public safety is excluded altogether as a ground for imposing a restriction order. That is wholly unacceptable, and I hope that the Government will look at the matter again in Committee.
Let me now deal with the Bill's gravest omission, the absence of measures to deal with under-age drinking. I cannot understand why a Government who are prepared to tackle the problems of drug abuse with stringent legal measures, and who responded so promptly to the tragedies of Zeebrugge and Hungerford, should appear so unconcerned and so reluctant to make decisions on the problem of under-age drinking. Only last Thursday The London Evening Standard carried the headline
Half our children are regulars at the pub",
and reported the results of a survey by Exeter university based on a sample of 18,000 schoolchildren throughout the country, which revealed that almost half our 14 to 15-year-old boys — and almost as many girls — had visited a pub or bar in the two weeks before the survey was carried out.
Such findings are not new. They merely confirm what the Government already knew in October 1985 when the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys handed a report that it had commissioned to the Department of Health and Social Security. I have to speak as I feel and say what I know. The history of that document is a disgrace. The Government's behaviour remains a complete mystery to me. When I tabled questions about the report in February 1986, I was fobbed off with the reply that it would be published later in the year, and so it was. It was sneaked out a few days before the Christmas recess. The findings confirmed that, for adolescents, the

major drug of abuse was not glue, or heroin, or cannabis, but alcohol, and that adolescents suffer many more problems from alcohol than from all the other drugs combined.
The Government have now sat on that report for over two years. It concluded that under-age drinking was rampant and, if not tackled seriously, would be completely out of control by the end of the decade. In spite of that, the Government now bring before the House a major piece of licensing legislation containing no measures to deal with the problem. Indeed, the very extension of hours that the Government seek in the Bill would worsen what has already become an epidemic—and I choose that word carefully.
The Government know that one in five 15-year-olds drinks more than 25 units of alcohol a week, which is well above the maximum regarded as safe for an adult. They know that the law on under-age drinking is not only flouted by young people, but, if their own surveys are correct, that it is ignored by the majority of publicans. More than 1,000 young people die every year as a consequence of alcohol misuse. In 1984, 2 per cent. of resident patients discharged from detoxification centres in the North East London regional health authority area were under 15 years of age, and in some district health authority areas the figure was 5 per cent. That number is increasing.
The Government are very well aware of the situation. Their consultative document, published on 4 August, recognised that action was needed. Indeed, the document clearly implied that the Bill would contain provisions to tackle the problem of under-age drinking. It was no doubt the promise of such action, coupled with the announcement of the inter departmental committee that persuaded the British Medical Association an the Institute of Alcohol Studies to be less hostile to the Bill than they had been to the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood. Last Christmas the Institute of Alcohol Studies called for rigorous enforcement of the law on under-age drinking and urged that the court should no longer need proof that a licensee knowingly sold alcohol to a minor in order to prosecute, a view widely expressed in editorials throughout the country, but the Home Office had already been alerted to the need in 1983 by no less a body than the Justices' Clerks Society. The justices' clerks administer the law and recognise the gravity of the problem. They are the people who know, and who hear the facts in court.
I find one matter extremely puzzling. According to the press, a working party of the standing conference on crime prevention set up by the Home Office to consider the problem of under-age drinking is due to issue its report later this month. I am led to believe that it will recommend tough action, including a ban on drinking in public places by persons under the age of 18, the removal of the word "knowingly" from those sections of the Licensing Act relating to the selling by licensees of alcohol to children and the raising of the age limit for persons to enter licensed premises.
It seems that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be present at a meeting on 24 November at which the report will be discussed. That means that the recommendations must be known to him already. Why, then, are they not reflected in the Bill? Are we to understand that the Government intend to deal with this aspect of the law in Committee, or will they at some time in the future introduce another Bill to deal specifically with under-age


drinking? Or are we to assume that the Government intend to ignore the recommendations of their advisory committee? Whichever is the case, it is difficult to see what useful purpose can be served by debating the Bill, let alone passing it, when we are ignorant of the Government's intentions.
I might not have spoken so strongly had I not seen an article dated 22 October in a journal entitled Publican, which stated that the proposals of the standing conference on crime prevention would not be entertained by the Home Office. How does the author know? The article states that the Home Office is known to want a smooth passage for the Bill and will not entertain the addition of
anti-alcohol measures or fresh restrictions which might delay its progress.
Is that so? We need to know whether that article truly reflects the view of the Home Office. I read the consultative document and learned of the establishment of the interdepartmental committee, and I warmly wlcome the latter initiative because I know that my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal is a man of firm principle, sincerity and integrity; I expect action from him, and I know that we shall get it. But clearly in this the Government are putting the cart before the horse.
Originally, I took the view that I would not vote against the Bill on Second Reading but would abstain. That was when I had not seen the Bill. I have seen it now and I cannot acquiesce in a measure which is so untimely and which fails to tackle the problem of under-age drinkers. I trusted the Government and thought that they would at least be prepared to grasp the nettle and seek ways and means of reducing alcohol-related harm.
I am sure that my hon. Friends will forgive me if I begin to have a lurking fear that the Government intend to do nothing that might offend the drinks industry. I hope that I am wrong about that. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will assure me that the Government intend to act positively and that further legislation will follow. I hope that my hon. Friend's reply is helpful because, if it is not, the Government cannot count on my support.
I hope too that throughout the debate, both in the House and in Committee, we will all bear in mind the escalating drain on our Health Service, the increasing number of broken homes, the harrowing loss of a child, parent, husband or wife because of the criminal action of a drunken driver, and the blighting of the lives of more and more of our young people. That is what we should consider before we chance our arm with this further increase in drinking hours. I hope that we bear in mind that it is not the public who are clamouring for the Bill, but those who make money out of peddling our No. I drug of abuse.
This morning I had a telephone call from a licensee who wished me to make these comments to the House. I venture to suggest that a number of licensees—decent, responsible people—do not want further deterioration. We should bear in mind the fact that, with events already out of control, there is no case for risking further deterioration. We should also remember that the World Health Organisation has urged all member states, including Britain, to reduce their consumption of alcohol by 25 per cent. by 1995, for health reasons. Will this untimely and incomplete Bill really be our country's answer to that sensible and urgent plea?

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Clearly, a large number of hon. Members are seeking to take part in the debate. Brief speeches will reduce the number of disappointments.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Although the speech of the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) may not have been particularly brief, many hon. Members should pay attention to it. The right hon. Gentleman described the Bill as "modest", but the arguments that he advanced demanded a sense of responsibility which we have not yet seen from the Government. We certainly did not see it from the large number of Conservative candidates in the general election, who gave a remarkably high priority to the liberalisation of licensing laws but much less to issues such as unemployment, which may well have been worthy of a little more attention.
Two or three years ago I would probably have voted in favour of liberalisation, but the experience in my constituency since then and the growing concern about the matters raised by the right hon. Member for Castle Point have convinced me that this measure is not merely "modest", but is extremely harmful. It will give a great deal more power and opportunity to publicans, but even more to the breweries.
I have been concerned about the fact that the major brewery in my area—my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) pointed this out after he declined, not unreasonably, to allow me to intervene—requires its landlords to be open during every permitted hour. On Thursday I asked what steps the Home Secretary was taking to ensure that the flexibility to which the Government claim to be attached is achieved. The Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg)—replied in a written answer:
This is a matter for negotiation between the parties concerned.
Therefore, whether the breweries allowed their tenants or managers to provide the flexibility which the Conservative general election manifesto said would be sought was nothing to do with the Government. The Under-Secretary said:
I understand that negotiations are in progress and the parties are hopeful that a satisfactory solution will be found.
I suggest that the Bill should not have been brought before the House until proper arrangements had been made to give that flexibility.
My main reason for speaking is to express my deep concern because of the experience in my constituency over the past two or three years. Two licensed premises enjoyed late night hours until 2 am. When one stopped being open for those hours, the local crime rate fell by nearly 50 per cent. It might be worth the Home Office asking the South Yorkshire police to comment on the effect of extended hours on society in the Rotherham area.
The second of those licensed premises, which is now closed—the name is about to be changed—was called "The Kiss of Life". I reckon that I received up to 30 complaints a week about that public house, to which people repaired after they had done a great deal of drinking at other hostelries. I was pleased—as, I believe, were many hundreds of my constituents—when "The Kiss of Life" ceased to operate. It is about to re-open as a more respectable establishment.

Mr. Favell: I refer the hon. Gentleman to clause 4 which, I hope, will resolve the very problem of public houses that obtain special hours certificates, especially in residential areas. We have all suffered from such problems. The powers given to the licensing justices to deal with these problems have now been greatly enlarged.

Mr. Hardy: There are all sorts of protective arrangements in other clauses. The licensing benches had a certain amount of power before, and I have been disappointed that they have not exercised that power. I do not enthuse when it seems likely that those who appeal to the licensing benches may suffer financial forfeit.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I have a similar problem in my constituency. A number of people, having drunk all day in Scotland over the border, cause a great deal of public disorder while availing themselves of the opportunity to go to a late licensed premises in my constituency.

Mr. Hardy: The problem of the mobility of the inebriated is serious, and the Government will make it worse.
The real reason for my involvement in the debate is the experience of two landlords in Wath upon Dearne, which is where I live and is within my constituency. I know "The Oak Tree Inn" and its landlord. I spent most of my childhood within about 100 yards of that establishment, which is 250 yards from my home. The landlord is on four weeks' notice to vacate his premises because he has not reached the brewery's barrellage target. I wrote to the brewery, John Smiths, which took over the local brewery, Whitworth, Son and Nephew, which I think is now the preserve of an Australian commercial enterprise. John Smiths has given that landlord and the landlord of another public house in Wath upon Dearne four weeks' notice because they have not reached the beer sales target set by the brewery.
I pointed out to the brewery that the population is stable, that disposable household income has fallen and that there are three or four new public houses within the former urban district. I asked the brewery how on earth they expected the landlord to maintain or increase his sales when there was the same population, less money and more public houses. The brewery has not answered that point. It has said that its managers should be able to exercise ingenuity and industriousness. The right hon. Member for Castle Point will recognise the sort of ingenuity and industriousness which landlords could demonstrate.
The brewery thinks of its obligation to its shareholders. It is not concerned about under-age drinking or about encouraging its landlords to refuse to serve a person who has had enough. The brewery is not concerned about the noise and other problems that can arise. It is all very well hon. Members wanting to be flexible, but if they live on or close to a route from public houses where ingenuity and industriousness have caused a social nuisance to develop, they may feel, as many of my constituents feel, that flexibility and freedom must be considered at the same time as responsibility.
Only a few months ago I saw a girl in the middle of Wath upon Dearne completely inebriated at 3 o'clock in the afternoon. Only three of four months ago my wife and I went to the police station to bring the police to four teenagers—I doubt whether any was anywhere near the age of 18—who were completely drunk at 3.30 on a

Saturday afternoon. One was so drunk that he could not get up and was lying in the middle of the road. That type of scene in my home town would not have existed 20 years ago.

Mr. Couchman: rose——

Mr. Hardy: I am sorry, but I shall not give way. I have given way twice and I want to finish soon.
We did not see such scenes until relatively recently. As a former schoolmaster and one who is concerned with the health of my constituents, I believe that drunkenness among young people and alcohol abuse among the community generally have reached serious proportions.
It is time that the Government recognised the severity of the situation rather than appearing merely to be the pawns of those who manufacture drink. Decent landlords should be able to remain within the community, but the breweries want landlords who will maximise profit. The Government have an obligation to ensure that breweries' profits take second place to the interests of the community. The present proposals and current practices in the industry certainly do not put the interests of the community uppermost. I am deeply concerned at what is happening in my constituency and I fear that things will become a great deal worse if the Government have their way.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I shall return to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), as eloquent and well informed as ever on these matters, reminded the House that I had the honour to introduce a private Member's Bill last Session. That Bill involved more flexibility in licensing hours than the present Bill. Nevertheless, it had all-party support. It was supported by a number of Labour Members and especially by Sir Clement Freud from the Liberal Bench. It had a Second Reading without a Division and went through its Committee stage. That experience established that there was widespread, if not universal, support in the House for a modest reform of licensing hours in England and Wales.
The House must recognise the absurdity of the present law. A person visiting this part of London in the afternoon and wanting a drink can acquire alcohol without difficulty by going to a restaurant and consuming alcohol with a meal, by buying alcohol in a supermarket or off-licence and consuming it in St. James's park, by taking a train to Brighton and back and consuming alcohol throughout both journeys, or even, perhaps, by persuading his or her Member of Parliament to buy drinks in one of the bars here. The one place where such a person could not consume alcohol would be in the controlled social environment of a public house. To me, that is absurd. Surely the essence of reform is that it is better to allow the consumption of alcohol in a socially and legally controlled environment than to encourage people to buy alcohol from supermarkets and to consume it wherever they like, which is the effect of the present law.
The hon. Member for Wentworth spoke eloquently of the problems of late-night opening. Clause 4 provides new discretionary powers for licensing justices and courts in relation to late-night nuisance. That is an important additional safeguard. The fact that there are serious alcohol-related problems in our society is not in dispute.


The question before the House is whether a measure of this kind would improve the situation, have a deleterious effect or have broadly no effect, given the natural arguments in favour of choice and of measures likely to increase choice.
As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said, one must be cautious about drawing too dramatic conclusions from the evidence of Scotland. Nevertheless, I congratulate from the Labour Government—I hope that some Opposition Members will do so, including the hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) whose expertise in these matters is well known—on introducing the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976. I think that it is universally agreed, first, that no one wishes to return to the status quo before that legislation; and, secondly, that it has led to more civilised drinking. Thirdly, it is an unquestioned fact that the police now support the reforms that were implemented.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point referred to the present situation in Scotland. It is no part of my case or of anyone else's to be complacent about the situation in Scotland. Nevertheless, before the 1976 Act, Dr. Clayson himself stated that on every index for studying the misuse of alcohol, the Scots were worse than the English. One may interpret the statistics optimistically, pointing out that between 1981 and 1986, when one would have expected the effect of the 1976 Act to become apparent, figures for cirrhosis fell by 16 per cent. in Scotland but increased by 14 per cent. in England and Wales. The decline in cases of drunkenness was also sharper in Scotland than in England and Wales. The number of drink-driving convictions in England and Wales rose by 64 per cent. between 1975 and 1985 but increased only slightly in Scotland. The overwhelming weight of evidence gives no comfort to the opponents of a modest reform of this kind.
It has been suggested that the figures for alcohol consumption were affected by the recession, but the figures do not bear out the contention that Scotland was worse hit than England and Wales. Between 1974 and 1984, unemployment rose by 126 per cent. in Scotland compared with 139 per cent. for Great Britain as a whole, and personal incomes rose more in Scotland than in the United Kingdom as a whole.
I should be interested to hear any further comments from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State with regard to Sundays. I have some sympathy with the case so honestly stated by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, that doing nothing about Sundays would make it less difficult to get the Bill through. That is why my Bill did not touch Sundays. But there is a difference between a private Member coming eighth in the ballot and a Government, with all their advantages, implementing a manifesto commitment.
I would not go so far as the Erroll committee recommendatision. Of course there are arguments for keeping Sunday special, but that is not an argument for the status quo. In my view, the argument for liberalisation in principle applies strongly to the very limited period of two hours available at lunch-time on Sundays, which in my view is likely to lead to "beat the clock" drinking and to discourage leisurely drinking at a time of major importance for the leisure and tourism industries. I have no doubt that these aspects will be considered in Committee. The Erroll committee recommendation may be too radical, but that should not lead us to regard the status quo as the best of all possible worlds.
The House is rightly concerned about the problems of under-age drinking. The Scottish Council on Alcoholism has pointed to the problems in Scotland and, in particular identified consumption from supermarkets as being a major cause. The law in England and Wales varies unsatisfactorily and is in need of amendment. The Bill will bring undoubted benefits in choice, employment and tourism. I am not one of those who take an extreme stand on the Scottish figures. They must be interpreted with caution. However, I believe that the arguments from Scotland point in the direction of a sensible and modest reform, and I wish the Bill well.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Although I shall speak in favour of the Bill and vote accordingly, there is to be a free vote from the alliance Benches. We accept that the issues that we are called upon to determine today require the exercise of individual judgment. As has been eloquently demonstrated in some of the speeches, there is genuine concern about the effects of relaxation. I do riot share that concern, but I accept that it is not to be discounted or lightly disregarded.
I find myself substantially in accord with the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). However, before I expand upon that, it would be proper to declare an interest in two respects. First, as a practising advocate in Scotland, I have appeared on a number of occasions on behalf of companies that might be expected to profit from the provisions of the Bill. Secondly, I had the good fortune to be a member of the Clayson committee that sat contemporaneously with the Erroll committee. Indeed, the Clayson committee's proposals were surprisingly rapidly enacted in the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976. It is to the particular provisions of that Act that I wish to direct the attention of the House, especially in relation to clause 1 of this Bill, which has justifiably been described as a modest proposal.
The provisions of section 64 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 allow for the regular extension of permitted hours. Extensions have been sought for the period between 2.30 pm and 5 pm to such an extent that they have been granted virtually as a matter of course. That can only be because the licensing boards charged with the responsibilities of administering the Act have decided that such extensions can be granted without causing undue public nuisance or a threat to public order or safety — the statutory grounds for refusing an extension. Indeed, the fact that the period between 2.30 pm and 5 pm has been treated in that way by licensing boards was reflected in the consultative document produced by the Scottish Home and Health Department this year, which suggested that, in parallel with clause 1 of this Bill, 11 am to 11 pm could become the basic terms of a licence in Scotland.
The experience in Scotland does not suggest that the extension of hours in the afternoon has had anything approaching the adverse consequences that have been predicted for the provisions of clause 1. In a country that is endeavouring to expand the tourist trade, it has become clear that the facilities now available in Scotland in the afternoon have frequently proved beneficial. That is in line with the consequences of relaxation generally in Scotland, which has improved the standards of comfort and hygiene and been a civilising influence, even in licensed premises in urban areas.
A rather curious consequence of that relaxation is that the range of non-alcoholic drinks available in public houses has been extended and expanded. Whereas, prior to 1976, the atmosphere in a public house would have dissuaded someone from entering if he was not intending to drink alcohol, now he may more freely enter and have a non-alcoholic drink. The success of reform in Scotland has to some extent arisen because the powers of the licensing authorities were properly defined in the 1976 Act and because there was a proper recognition of the public interest and the right of the public to object either to applications for licences or to an extension of the hours otherwise permitted by the Act.
The extended power of licensing authorities in Scotland to intervene when standards have not been met has been effective, especially in the regulation of licensed premises after 11 pm and into the early hours of the morning. Certain enterprises, such as discotheques, are, by their very nature, operating at an hour when many people have already retired to bed. Clauses 2 and 4 of the Bill similarly reflect the principle of giving licensing authorities an effective policing power for premises under their jurisdiction.
The Clayson committee was concerned to ensure proper monitoring of the effects of changes in Scottish legislation, but that has not happened. I hope that, recognising some of the apprehensions voiced today, the Government will feel that that should now be done in the whole of the United Kingdom. Indeed, it may be a topic for consideration by the interdepartmental committee.
Having regard to the strictures about short speeches, I wish to conclude with a specific reference to clause 10. As I understand it, it gives power to licensing authorities to grant expenses against those who oppose applications if that is thought to be just and reasonable. That might impose a rather severe test on members of the public who wish to object to applications. I draw to the Minister's attention section 16(6) of the 1976 Act in Scotland which provides a similar power, but which requires the licensing authorities to be satisfied that the objection is frivolous or vexatious. If those principles are applicable north of the border they could, with considerable common sense, be incorporated into similar provisions south of the border. My experience of Scotland, however, is that the power to award expenses has rarely, if ever, been exercised.
The proposals in the Bill have been described as modest by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I think the description appropriate. They represent a modest liberalising of the law, and should commend themselves to the whole House.

Mr. Robert Banks: I am grateful for this opportunity to intervene in the debate. I especially want to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on securing this piece of legislation in our programme for this Session. The Bill responds to what the public at large feels has been a successful change in Scotland. If it goes through Parliament, it will bring us more into line with practices in Europe. Many people from all parts of the world who visit this country are confused by our licensing laws.
I am pleased to say that the legislation is based on conclusive evidence. In that respect, I am pleased to follow

the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) who, with his experience on the Clayson committee, has brought an important contribution to the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) knows more than anyone else about the effects of changes in the licensing laws in Scotland. Through the introduction of his Bill on licensing reform, he too brings to the debate the sort of evidence that we are looking for as justifying such changes. It is important that the changes that we make do not exacerbate the problems of alcoholism and misuse of alcohol. It is to ensure that we are in a better position to deal with such problems, but, at the same time, allow people to enjoy themselves and go about their lives in a civilised pattern.
Much is said about the Scottish evidence. Some studies have found no significant increase in the consumption of alcohol among men as a whole between 1976 and 1984. In 1976, an average of 14·3 units a week were consumed, as opposed to 1984 when 14·5 units per week were consumed. The difference is so minute as to be almost insignificant. The increase was due to an increase in the number of men's visits to public houses. Among women, there has been an increase. In 1976, 2·8 units of alcohol a week were consumed, and in 1984 the figure had risen to 3·8 units a week. That is a modest increase. In the main, it is due to the fact that more women are going to pubs in Scotland with their husbands and men friends, whereas hitherto they were put off by the general state and order of pubs. Since 1976, there has been an upgrading of public houses—the provision of more food and a much more civilised atmosphere — and that has been more acceptable to women who wish to go in and enjoy themselves.

Mr. Favell: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are no similar figures for England and Wales? It is impossible to say whether alcohol consumption has gone up by that modest amount in England and Wales. It could reflect a general trend throughout the United Kingdom towards greater equality for women who, at one time, were treated as second-class citizens in pubs and clubs, including Conservative clubs.

Mr. Banks: I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will understand that point. I certainly agree with what was said by my hon. Friend.
The final drink-up time that occurs just before closing is important. To my mind, the restrictions placed on the closing of pubs at 10 o'clock in Scotland before 1976 and at 11 o'clock now in England and Wales tend to accelerate drinking just before the pubs are about to close. That is the crucial time when people will drink just too much, putting them over the limit before they go and drive away in their cars, or they drink that much more, which leads them to commit some stupid crime or to do something silly. I prefer my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to accept that it is better to have greater flexibility so that, through the Bill, we may suggest that pubs can open at, say, 11.30 in the morning and close at 11·30 at night, with all the restrictions that would be imposed by licensing magistrates as a result of local opposition and objections if they were proved to be unacceptable.
If hours are staggered to take account of local conditions—prticularly in areas in which there are a great number of tourist attractions, such as cinemas and theatres, and people want to go to a pub and enjoy a drink


and perhaps have some food before they go home—extra time would allow that to take place in a civilised and reasonable way. It would also have the effect of reducing the snap drink-up time, which happens at the moment when people go to a pub a little later in the evening. It would also he of general benefit to the police. They will find that it is easier to police pubs that close at different times rather than try to police all the pubs that close at the same time every night.
The survey of licensed premises that the Government commissioned showed that a significant reduction in the pattern of acceleration of drinking towards the end of the evening had not disappeared in Scotland but had diminished. Senior police officers much prefer the situation, but the decline in the proportion of drinkers on licensed premises at closing time who had either bought a drink for themselves or were bought one in the last 10 minutes has gone down from 51 per cent. in Scotland in 1976 to 42 per cent. in 1984. We need to take that argument on board.
One point that has emerged in this debate and that will emerge in all other debates on licensing reform relates to the drunken driver and drunkenness. I shall continue to advocate that we should have personal breathalysers. They should be freely available on the market at reasonable prices, so that, if somebody feels that he may be over the limit, he can at least test himself. If he is over the limit, he can wait until he is under the limit or he does not drive. It is extraordinary that we do not take action to try to propel the matter forward and give drivers an opportunity to test themselves in their cars, or before they get into their cars, to see whether they are over the limit. Certainly, insurance companies have a role to play in abdicating insurance if a drunken driver is found guilty of an offence. Nobody should be able to drive a car if he is in a condition which could cause grave harm to someone else.

Mr. Colvin: I go further and ask my hon. Friend to reconsider what he said. There is a good case for a driver who goes to a pub not to have any alcohol at all. The licensing trade may welcome, not resist, that suggestion.

Mr. Banks: I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend's point. We can debate it on other occasions. It is reasonable to have one or two dinks. As Members of Parliament we may often go to functions. It is normal to take a glass of wine and then go to another function. We can drive quite safely on that basis.
Experience in Scotland has shown that the number of drivers who have been convicted of offences arising out of being drunk in control of a vehicle has declined in relation to the number in England and Wales, which has increased.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) referred to problems associated with under-age drinkers. His speeches on such matters are always listened to with great interest. Under-age drinkers are undoubtedly a major problem for the publican who cannot determine the age of some of the people whom he serves. It is a major problem when young people, who should not drink, do so wildly and to excess. It is up to the publican to say to somebody about whom he has any slight hesitation in serving because he believes that they may be under 18 years of age, "I shall serve you with a drink if you can prove to me that you are over 18." That is another way of saying that we should have identity cards. It would make it simple and easy for anybody to make a straightforward challenge of that sort.
I welcome the work that brewers and the Brewers Society have done in bringing forward alcohol-free beers. I have sampled some of them, and they are good. People can enjoy the conviviality of drinking in a pub with friends without the risk of going over the limit. An enormous amount of work must be done to deal with the problem of alcohol misuse. I warmly welcome the appointment of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to co-ordinate the activities of the various Departments. That is a major step forward. In time, I am sure, we shall see the action that many of us believe is necessary to educate young people about drinking sensibly and the problems that emanate from too much alcohol consumption.
At the end of the day, the Bill will be of benefit. It will not exacerbate the problem of alcohol abuse, but it will make us a much more civilised nation. I support the Bill.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: I want to make it clear that I am putting forward the views of the National Association of Licensed House Managers. Whatever is said by Front Bench spokesmen and whatever is decided upon, the licensed house managers will have to deal with the problems created by the Bill.
Of course, those managers are prepared to go part of the way to assist the implementation of the Bill. They would not, for example, oppose the extension of licensing hours from 11 am to 11 pm; they are quite agreeable to that, although it goes further than they would have wanted. However, they would oppose any interference with or extension of Sunday or bank holiday opening hours, such as those for Good Friday or at Christmas.
Licensed house managers want to retain some control over the operation of licensed premises. They would especially like to retain the law that provides specifically that licensees are not obliged to open for all the permitted hours. They feel that if all the other pubs in a town or village opened, the pressure on them to do likewise would become intolerable unless some provision enabling them to avoid having to do so were written into the Bill.
I know that I shall elicit a response from the Minister by saying that licensed house managers would like removed from their contracts the clause that obliges a licensee to open his licensed premises during the whole of the available permitted hours. It is no good saying one thing if licensed house managers are obliged to do the opposite because the brewers insist on keeping the premises open. That is a most important point.
Another important argument relates to flexibility. The licensed house managers understand local conditions. I do not think that there will be any extension of licensing hours in many areas. In many residential and industrial areas the local need can be met under existing licensing arrangements. Indeed, I do not think there will be the demand that the brewers think. However, in many other areas the position many be different. One example is the City, where people appear to have nothing better to do than to drink in the afternoon — indeed it might be better for them to drink in the afternoon than to make the mess that they have made recently of stock market prices.
Another such instance of need would be in seaside resorts. In the holiday trade there is need to maximise the hours available. Similarly, holiday resorts need to be flexible in winter. Surely it is best to leave it to the manager or to the licensee to know his own area and, in knowing his locality, to reach the decision, rather than having


pressure placed on him by the brewer who might say, "This is now the law and we expect you all to be open." We know that that pressure could arise if the Bill is left as it is. We should take account of local conditions and meet the need rather than create one. I am sure that that is the way in which licensed house managers would look at the matter.
Hon. Members of all parties have said that the Bill aims to enable people to use licensed premises rather than to encourage them to drink more. We should examine that matter in relation to the problems that face us. Licensed house managers are especially concerned that the extended hours provision must not provide a basis for a later terminal hour on a regular basis, as occurs now, for example, in some pubs on Friday and Saturday evenings.
Hon. Members have also touched on the fact that alcohol is available from sources other than public houses and restaurants. Much of the increase in drinking habits has occurred because of off-licences and supermarkets. Many statistics have been given on under-age and children's drinking and on the fact that more women are drinking. It is far easier for an under-age person to go into a supermarket to obtain drinks than it is for him to do so on licensed premises. It is also far easier for women or other members of the family, when shopping, to put drinks in the supermarket trolley. I am sure that that is why an increase in drinking has occurred and we should pay more attention to it.
At football matches, the closing of pubs around football grounds has not stopped people who are drunk entering the ground. Indeed, some people try to take drink into the ground. That happens because they have been able to obtain the alcohol from surrounding supermarkets. I should like to see, as would many licensed house managers, supermarkets having their licences revoked when such things happen. They should be responsible for the disorderly conduct that can occur.
The hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) referred to the non-alcoholic beverages that taste like beer. They are not perfect, but they are still being worked on and I welcome them. However, one of the difficulties at the moment is that they cost more than ordinary beers. If we want to promote them, surely the price should be less than that of beer. Perhaps the Government could do something about that: possibly the Chancellor could seek to extend their sales and divert people from alcohol.
There is nothing wrong with going into a pub. Indeed, pubs are the central feature of many villages, because they are the places where people gather. That is not a bad thing, and I should like to see all the family going in. It does not necessarily follow that that would lead to more drinking. If a pub is well run — many licensees are responsible people—that need not happen and licensees often kick out people who are nuisances.
I do not want extended licensing hours to be imposed on areas where it need not happen. I do not want to see the pressure to be open being put on licensed house managers by brewers. Where there is a need for an extension of the licensing hours or at bank holidays such as Christmas, it should be the individual licensee who makes an application rather than the area manager or the brewery.
I shall probably support the Bill. However, I give fair warning that I shall watch what happens. I should like to see some of the conditions and ideas that I have put

forward incorporated in the Bill. I shall certainly consider the Bill most carefully on Third Reading to decide whether I shall continue to support it. However, for the moment I wish it not a fair wind, but a little wind. I shall probably continue to support it, but only on the understanding that flexibility must remain with the licensee and especially with the house manager. We must protect them against the undue pressure that could come from breweries.

Mr. Greg Knight: Mr. Deputy Speaker made a plea for brief speeches and I shall attempt to follow that advice.
We live in an enlightened age — the age of the microchip, of man in space and of nuclear power—yet in England and Wales it is still not possible to get a drink in a public house during the afternoon or after 11 pm. The truth is that our licensing laws are not relevant to today. They are restrictive and inconvenient to everybody. I applaud the Government for seeking to bring about a modest change through this Bill.
The arguments put forward by critics of the measure are that the Government should leave the law as it is because of the problem that, regrettably, a minority of people have with alcohol. I have never understood why the majority should face the inconvenience of severe restrictions on pub licensing hours because of the unfortunate minority. My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) made several good points, but he omitted to mention that public houses are controlled drinking environments. The licensee is in charge of what happens on his premises and has a duty to keep an orderly house. There are certain ways in which one cannot conduct oneself in a public house; for example, one cannot behave in a threatening or abusive way to other customers and one cannot be served if one is intoxicated or if one is under age.
The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) gave a graphic description of several drunken youths collapsing and milling about outside his house. I, like the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) must ask him where those youths bought that drink. The chances are that they bought it, not in a public house, but in a nearby supermarket. If there is a case for the Government strengthening the law, it is in relation not to public houses but to supermarkets.
Often, the licensee in a supermarket is not in charge of alcohol sales. He may visit the licensing area of his store only once a day, and invariably it is under the control of a fairly junior shop assistant. Many hon. Members will have seen a shop assistant serving a customer with drink who is obviously under age, and on two recent occasions I saw an assistant selling alcohol to a customer who was clearly intoxicated.

Mr. Hoyle: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a supermarket licensee does not see the consequences of the drink bought from his store?

Mr. Knight: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The consequences are often scenes of drunken behaviour on the streets, such as the hon. Member for Wentworth described.
Other critics outside the House say that the measure does not go far enough, and I have some sympathy with them. Obviously clauses 2 and 4 are right, but the licensee


of a public house is adjudged by a magistrates court to be a fit and proper person. He must provide references; he knows that his behaviour is under continual police scrutiny and that he must run an orderly house. I wonder why in 1987 we cannot therefore allow a publican to open at his discretion within a maximum number of hours each day. That is the nettle that we should grasp tonight.
Even the Erroll report of 1972 recommended that pubs should be able to open between 10 am and midnight, yet 15 years on we are being asked to consider only a minor relaxation. Even if the Bill is passed, most of Europe and the United States will still have more liberal licensing laws.
Some opponents of the Bill have provided statistics. I will do the same. United States law varies from state to state. In Alabama, the closing hour for bars is 2 am, in Arizona I am, in California 2 am, in Florida midnight, in Indiana 3 am and in Nevada the bars are open 24 hours a day. It is disappointing that the Government have not seen fit to include measures to postpone the terminal hour here.
As the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) said, it is disappointing that the Bill does not include measures to allow greater flexibility on Sundays. As he pointed out, it is ironic that the day of the week when most members of the public have most leisure is the one day when we shall not allow them to choose how they use that time.
My hon. Friend the Minister will be pleased to know that Derby and District Licensed Victuallers Association is wholeheartedly behind the measure. However, it has expressed some anxiety about the operation of the drinking-up rule and I hope that my hon. Friend will consider this in Committee. The association feels that the allocation of 10 minutes which is given to licensees to collect alcohol from tables and to persuade customers to leave is a narrow period in which to operate. It would welcome the Government reconsidering this point and, hopefully, relaxing it somewhat.
The Bill is not a drunks' charter; it is a modest measure. In my view, it is rather too modest, but in politics one soon learns to grasp what one can while one can. On that basis, I shall support the measure tonight.

Mr. Donald Anderson: At least the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) had the honesty to say that he was grabbing what he could and wanted the measure to go even further. Both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) were throwing dust in our eyes in trying to turn our attention to the off-licenses and supermarkets. Naturally, one must consider all the outlets available to the public. Both tried to exonerate public houses by describing them as "controlled environments", but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) said—in this matter he is my right hon. Friend — the recent Health Education Authority survey stated that 49 per cent. of 14 to 15-year-olds visited a pub or bar in the two weeks before the survey was carried out. That hardly supports the argument of a closely controlled environment, nor the argument that one need simply look into supermarkets and off-licences.
This is pre-eminently a matter on which we should all declare our interests, so in all honesty I shall declare mine. Together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point, I am a patron of the Alcohol Safeguards Campaign

and Familybase, and I am president of the West Glamorgan council group on alcohol and drug abuse. I hope that all Conservative Members will declare their personal interests in that same spirit and that the Government will lay on the table their close personal and financial links with the drinks trade, which have existed ever since William Ewart Gladstone lost the 1874 election, having been drowned by torrents of gin and beer following the Licensing Act 1872. It was introduced by Henry Bruce. who, like me, was not only a member of the Bar, but the only other Member who attended Swansea grammar school. Clearly, there have since been substantial links between the drinks industry and the Conservative party.
The Minister will not be surprised that the bodies with which I am closely linked are opposed to the Bill. We have several questions. Who wants the change? Where is the pressure for this change coming from? Certainly pressure has come partly from the tourist industry. Since the Scottish precedent is quoted with such relish by Conservative Members, I note that in Scotland tourism increased by only 8 per cent. between 1979 and 1985, compared with 24 per cent. in England and Wales. That hardly argues eloquently for a direct correlation between the accessibility to drink following the 1976 change in Scotland and benefits to the tourist industry and brewers.
Following the excursion through history of my right hon. Friend, we recall that Bishop Magee of Peterborough said during the debate on the 1972 Act that he would like to see
''England free better than England sober.
I recall that Peterborough is not too far from Grantham or rural Oxfordshire, and I wonder whether there is an echo today of "rather England free than England sober" in speeches from the Government Front Bench.
Who is concerned about the Bill? Medical experts on the subject and the general public certainly are. There is no evidence of any support for the Bill from the general public—on the contrary. Why the hurry? What is it that impels the Government to press forward with this so-called modest change, when we hear that the Government's legislative programme is overloaded and their business managers are seeking opportunities of jettisoning parts of it? I commend this Bill for that purpose straight away. It is a poor measure and the Wakeharn committee gives the Government an opportunity to examine the whole issue of alcoholism in the round, rather than going ahead wilfully with only part of this area.
How far do the Government really want to go? Some Conservative Members have let the cat out of the bag: they have an incremental view of the Bill As the Home Secretary was honest enough to admit, it is as far as he can go now. He knows that if he put forward the package that he and his hon. Friends wanted, it would include Sunday, too. Having sustained a bloody nose over the Shops Bill in the last Session, he is not prepared to go ahead with that aspect now.
The Government like to portray the Bill as a modest, tidying-up measure, to get rid of what the Home Secretary called the dead afternoon. If so, are they prepared to give an undertaking to the House that in no circumstances will they support any further liberalisation for, say, the next five years? Or do the Government see the Bill purely on an incremental basis—something that they can get away with now in the hope that they can build on it by salami tactics, bit by bit, supporting their friends in the brewing


industry? Of course the brewers will come back asking for more, and the Government, on present form, will give it to them.
The key question surely is whether consumption will increase as a result of the measure. We know that the Scottish evidence is contradictory and inconclusive. Why do the Government not promote research that can give us a clearer idea of what has happend in Scotland? For example, the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys survey, prepared for the Scottish Home and Health Department, has produced figures that must be viewed with considerable caution. They are based on people's opinions of what happened rather than on what actually happened.
It is clear that increased road traffic offences due to drunken driving have continued to be higher in Scotland than in England. There has certainly been an increase in consumption among those in work, particularly among women. The only group among which there has been a reduction in consumption has been the unemployed—for obvious reasons. If the brewers are really saying that they do not expect an increase in consumption—we hear that the Government have promised them the Bill by February—why are they investing more——

Mr. Douglas Hogg: We have promised nobody the Bill by any time.

Mr. Anderson: That is some small mercy.
Why do the brewers intend to invest more if they do not expect higher profits? The Home Secretary contradicted himself by quoting with approval suggestions by the tourist industry that 50,000 jobs—albeit part-time jobs—would be created. If those 50,000 jobs were created within the public house system as a result of the Bill—the Home Secretary seemed to adopt that figure—who will pay their wages? Surely they can only come from increased consumption—from projected increased consumption — by the public. Who else would pay? The money will not come out of the brewers' pockets.
I made the concession that the Scottish evidence is inconclusive, but the reaction of the brewers and the evidence from other countries suggest that there is a direct correlation between availability and consumption, and between consumption and the range of social problems that my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point described. I do not propose to go over all the social consequences for the family, industry and personal relationships, but hon. Members who are concerned about the effects of alcohol know about them.
I want to inject one other matter that has not yet been discussed in the debate — the Welsh dimension. The Home Secretary talked about "England and Wales" as against Scotland. I submit that there is a special Welsh dimension to the debate. The Home Secretary is well aware of that because of a letter, dated 25 September, that was sent to him by the Welsh Health Promotion Authority. It charted a growing problem of alcoholism in Wales. It described it as being of epidemic proportions, with enormous costs to industry and the family. For example, alcohol consumption in Wales is 25 per cent. higher than in England. Average expenditure on alcohol, in spite of our lower per capita income, is 15 per cent. greater. Alcohol is much cheaper in Wales—20 per cent. less

expensive than in London. There are 25 per cent. more licensees per hundred thousand of the population in Wales.
So we are bound to reflect on whether this modest change is likely to exacerbate or help the problem. We are going ahead with this corner of the matter without looking at the whole range of problems that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) mentioned: the effects of advertising and the commercialism that encourage people to drink: taxation policy and its effect on consumption: and other areas that we know can affect the total picture of alcoholism in this country.
The Government press ahead as a result of pressure from known quarters in this one area, yet public opinion polls among the Welsh people have decisively rejected this liberalisation measure. Heartbeat Wales carried out a special survey in September. It showed that 54 per cent. of people in Wales were opposed to change or wanted even tighter controls on opening hours. So there is clearly no mandate for the change in Wales. The Home Secretary may insist on a merrier England, but it is clear that the people of Wales do not want a merrier Wales, with all its social consequences. If the Government were at all sensitive to Welsh public opinion—they have and had no mandate from Welsh opinion from the last election—they would allow us to opt out.
Bills normally have a clause with estimates of Civil Services manpower and Exchequer costs that are likely to result from their implementation. With a Bill of this sort, we need a rather broader social audit. For example, if, as some suggest, there is likely to be a 15 per cent. increase in consumption, and as the brewers prepare to invest more money and produce those extra part-time jobs, it is estimated that such an increase would result in 9,000 more violent crimes, 1·2 million more working days lost, 350 more deaths a year from cirrhosis of the liver, and 50 to 100 extra deaths and up to 2,000 injuries on our roads—all as a result of the increase in alcoholism and alcohol-related effects.
The Bill is not part of a comprehensive strategy to combat alcoholism, but a shameless concession to an interest group and a reckless gamble that ignores the social costs to the country.

Mr. Gary Waller: I shall start by affirming that alcohol misuse is undoubtedly one of the greatest causes of human misery today, not only among those that it affects directly but also among their relatives and those who are close to them. If a continuation of the existing licensing controls could help in some way to reduce the scale of the problem or to prevent it increasing, then I would be among the first to argue against the change that is proposed in the Bill. However, the existing laws are illogical and arbitrary. Whether they ever did any good must be in some doubt. It is certainly difficult to argue that they do any good today.
At the beginning of this century total abstinence was very much the message that was preached by those who saw the effects of alcoholism in the home, in the street and in the workplace. The message was preached effectively because Lloyd George is quoted as saying in 1915:
We are fighting Germany, Austria and the drink. And, as far as I can see, the greatest of these deadly foes is drink.


King George V was responding to that mood when he pledged that drink would not be served in the royal household until the war was over. A law that restricted the times during which drink could be obtained over the bar thus appeared early in the century to be a step in the right direction.
There are still many things that we do not know and do not understand about why some people become victims of alcohol whereas the majority appear able to enjoy alcohol in moderation. However, there is one thing about which we can be absolutely sure: that simplistic solutions like those adopted in 1915 are not helpful. We require more subtle and more complex measures as part of a total strategy that recognises the realities of the situation that we face.
There is evidence that the present restrictions on afternoon opening hours only cause irritation to the tourist and to the moderate drinker. Anyone who is determined to drink—as is the problem drinker—will have no difficulty whatever in obtaining alcohol from one of very many retail outlets.
Let no one imagine that because we want the Bill to bring about a relaxation in these archaic restrictions that is in some way an indication that we believe there is not a problem. Clearly and sadly the problems are all too apparent. The costs of alcohol abuse in the workplace have been estimated to range up to £1·5 billion in terms of absenteeism, lost production and accidents. Heavy alcohol consumption accounts for, perhaps, 15,000 premature deaths every year. As many as one third of all patients in general medical wards appear to have an underlying problem that is in some way related to alcohol. It is a problem that may immediately affect 1 million people in the United Kingdom. Few people do not know of somebody who is affected in some way by the problem of alcoholism or of alcohol abuse.
The social ills associated with alcohol are greater than the ones relating to alcoholism alone. While 14 per cent. of men and 3 per cent. of women are thought regularly to drink more than the amounts which require that they be described as problem drinkers, according to recent assumed criteria, many tragedies are caused by people who may drink to excess only occasionally. The drunk driver who kills may never before have driven when over the limit, but his action on just one occasion may have disastrous consequences, as many of us know from the sad constituency cases with which we have to deal. One in three drivers killed on our roads had excess alcohol in the blood.
It is easy to understand why many well-meaning people come to the conclusion that restriction is the only means of averting such tragedies. However, history surely shows us that restriction may sometimes make the situation worse rather than better. In the United States, prohibition, which was introduced in 1919, glamorised law-breaking and ushered in a period when violent crime escalated alarmingly and underground drinking prospered until, eventually, those who made the laws in the United States saw the error of their ways.
Those who argue against the Bill do so because alcohol misuse can be and often is a serious threat to the individual and to society. There can be no doubt whatever about that. The only question to ask is what we can do about it. The Government can play an important part in answering the challenge. Only the Government can initiate the better designed and better targeted campaigns that are needed to

influence the young. We hear much about drugs, but alcohol kills 10 times as many teenagers as heroin and two thirds of drug-related deaths also involve alcohol.
For many young people alcohol is the cheapest and most fashionable drug available, and the research into drinking shows that the young are the most frequent drinkers. More money should be provided to the Health Education Authority specifically to fight alcohol misuse among the young. It cannot be right that, when £17 million has been spent fighting heroin and cocaine abuse, less than £1 million has been spent on the campaigns against alcohol.
The education message for young people is a difficult one to put across, because the message cannot just be, "Don't drink" in the same way as we would say, "Don't take drugs". Not only is it clear that drinking moderately will do no harm, but many cardiac specialists believe that moderate drinking may have some modest medical benefits. No doubt the argument about that will continue. The Bill has encouraged its proponents and, indeed, its opponents to produce figures that only go to show that one can prove anything with statistics. This applies riot only to the situation in Scotland, which many hon. Members have said is inconclusive, but to opinion surveys, the responses to which vary as much as the questions that are asked in the surveys.
I hope that the interdepartmental committee that has been set up under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal will not hesitate to press forward with initiatives designed to improve the situation, even if they are costly or difficult. It may he asked, for instance, whether we should not give legislative teeth to codes against advertisements that portray alcohol as attractive to under-18-year-olds if the existing voluntary code is not seen to be working effectively.
Most of the changes that one could envisage do not fall within the ambit of the licensing law. Issues that do, and which might be considered in Standing Committee, relate to the fact that publicans are hardly ever charged with the offence of selling alcohol to a person who is clearly already intoxicated, even though there must often be justification for such a charge. The majority of publicans do their best to control their saloon bars and to prevent people from drinking too much. However, of the many tens of thousands of people found drunk in the streets, surely some could have been seen by more than three licensees—which I think was the figure for a recent year—to be already far too intoxicated to be served with more alcohol. We could also consider whether there are adequate deterrents against selling alcohol to those who are under age. As I have said, the difficulties that licensees face should not be underestimated. Equally, they have a vital role to play in the front line against irresponsible and anti-social behaviour.
It is a frightening fact that 29 per cent. of 13-year-old boys and 11 per cent. of 13-year-old girls said in a recent survey carried out by, I think, the Department of Health and Social Security that they drank at least once a week. I would think that relatively few of them obtain their drink in public houses. This shows only that our major thrust must point in other directions.
There is plenty to be done in areas where legislation is only one of several options open to us. There has been plenty of debate over many years, if not decades, about these modest changes. We should not allow the broad


nature of the problems to which I have referred to stop us making progress in this field. That is why I welcome the Bill.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle), I shall support the Bill. Traditionally, the licensing laws have been concerned with the social consequences of the use and abuse of alcohol, but change must come. We must acknowledge that we live in an alcohol-using society.
As we all know, the present pattern of licensing hours stems from the first world war. Strict controls were introduced to curb drunkenness among munition workers. Surely today one cannot sensibly argue a case for controlling the sale and consumption of alcohol on licensed premises on the basis of what happened 70 years ago. It is generally agreed that there is a need for some control over licensing hours, but the reasons are very varied. Relying on the control of licensing hours as the principal means of preventing alcohol misuse seems to be inappropriate and ineffective. It prevents a person from enjoying a social drink in the afternoon, after, say, 3 pm. On the other hand, it simply makes it awkward for the determined drinker who can always purchase a drink at the local supermarket.
The present licensing hours do not prevent the hardened drinker from obtaining a drink. One need only look around my constituency to see young people, well below the legal age for consuming alcohol, drinking cider and cans of beer purchased from supermarkets and off-licences. I do not suppose that my constituency is out of the ordinary. No doubt a similar state of affairs exists throughout the country. Only last Saturday morning, constituents came to see me at my surgery complaining that the off-licence near their home was selling cans of beer to under-age youths who were then causing a disturbance.
We should address the real problem, which is not so much a fear of increased alcoholism and alcohol-related diseases—which some people see as an obvious spin-off from extending licensing hours—as the danger of the increased availability of alcohol in supermarkets and off-licences. Both young people and hardened drinkers may purchase alcohol virtually from Monday to Saturday, from about 9 am to 10 pm. They are not dependent on the opening of licensed premises. That is the real cause for concern.
Our present licensing hours prevent shift workers, at the end of their working day, be it early afternoon or late evening, from having a social drink. It prevents the frustrated tourist and the moderate drinker from obtaining and enjoying a drink after 3 pm. It makes little sense to allow a customer to buy a drink at 2 pm but not at 4 pm. It restricts freedom of choice. Is there any reasonable explanation for distinguishing between one part of the afternoon and another? The main argument for retaining the present licensing laws is that their removal will encourage increased alcohol consumption and widespread misuse, but that is not so.
The main conclusion to be drawn is that the liberal reforms in the Scottish licensing laws have not had a dramatic effect, so it would be unwise to base the possible results of licensing changes in England and Wales on the Scottish experience. The evidence suggests that neither

benefit nor harm would result from licensing changes. Indeed, they would create more jobs. It is estimated that more than 20,000 jobs would be created in public houses alone; indeed, I have heard mentioned the figures of 30,000 and 50,000. However, I must stress the need for safeguards for staff if that happens. Most of those jobs would stem from the supply of food rather than the sale of alcohol.
Since the introduction of more liberal licensing laws in Scotland, about one third of public houses have taken on more staff, mostly on the catering side. Pubs will be able to expand to provide more services and meals, snacks and refreshments will be available all day long. Such expansion would appear reasonable and is supported by the family expenditure survey which states that going out for a drink accounts for the largest single item of leisure expenditure for the average family and is greater than the amount spent on holidays. It seems logical that people should be able to enjoy a drink where they want and when they want.
It is regrettable that a small minority of people unable to cope with alcohol have been used as the reason for restricting the choice for the vast majority of moderate, sensible and sociable drinkers. There is insufficient evidence to establish a causal link between alcohol availability on licensed premises and drink-related problems. Scotland has proved the case—less control has led to less trouble.
The problem to which we must address ourselves is the increased availability of alcohol in supermarkets and off-licences. Over the past few years the number of off-licences has grown considerably faster than the number of public houses. However, relaxing the restrictions on licensing hours does not carry any obligation for premises to open. Licensees will not be obliged to open for the available permitted hours. The Bill includes a clause that gives the licensee the choice of opening for any hours within the 12 hours permitted. Effectively, that choice establishes flexibility in opening hours to meet customer demand, which is good. Often premises have been forced to open when there is no custom, which is silly. Licensees know their areas and they know the needs of their customers.
The existing law on the 10-minute drinking-up time is ludicrous and should be abolished, as it causes nothing but trouble and problems. Customers rush to get the last drink and that causes conflict and confrontation between the licensee and the customer. At the moment, there is great difficulty in keeping within the law on drinking-up time and in some cases it is an almost impossible task.
The whole objective must be a society in which the majority who wish to drink peaceably and sociably can do so at a time when they wish. The minority who abuse alcohol must not be allowed to influence the licensing hours for the majority. Although I do not believe that stringent licensing laws have a significant part to play in preventing alcohol abuse, I should like to see safeguards in the new law to enable licensing justices to ensure that the public are protected from any nuisance that may arise as a result of extended licensing hours. However, the liberal reform of the Scottish licensing laws has proved that there is no cause for concern in Scotland.
The present licensing laws are complex and varied. They date back to the Licensing Act 1921, which provided a similar timetable to that in operation today. That Act followed the stricter regulations that were introduced as a result of the first world war. Those regulations originate from a different era and, although they were effective at


the time, there is little reasonable justification for retaining them. Although the dangers of alcohol abuse have become apparent over the years, I do not believe that restricted licensing hours are appropriate or effective in controlling alcohol misuse. The Bill will give the customer freedom to enjoy a drink in the afternoon. I do not believe that the legislation will have any significant effect on the overall consumption of alcohol. However, I believe that the Government must urgently address themselves to the availability of alcohol in supermarkets and off-licences, which are particularly attractive to under-age people.
Restricted licensing hours do little to prevent the problem drinker from getting a drink but they restrict the freedom of choice for the moderate drinker who may wish to purchase a drink after 3 o'clock. If heed is taken of the issues that I have raised and, in particular, if safeguards for staff are included, I shall welcome the Bill. Quite honestly, I am dying for a drink now.

Mr. James Couchman: First, may I say how delighted I am to have caught your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, this evening.
May I congratulate the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg)—a great deal of good sense came from the Opposition side of the Chamber, for a change.
To prevent any misunderstanding, may I once again declare my financial and vested interest in the licensed trade and hence the reform of the licensing laws. I am a managing director of a small family company, of which I own 75 per cent. of the shares, which operates, under tenancy from three different breweries, five public houses in the London area. Together with my managers, I am licensee of those five pubs and I am registered as a multiple licence holder with the Metropolitan police.
For the past 17 years, my wife and I have earned a substantial proportion of our income from the licensed trade. For four years we ran an extremely busy south London pub with a ballroom. I followed my father and grandfather into the trade, and I believe that I am the hon. Member most closely involved with the operation of public houses. I am not a brewer, nor a freeholder—I am a tenant licensee. Although the brewers and myself have much in common concerning the Bill, there are certain areas on which we will probably find ourselves in dispute.
I believe that this is the seventh occasion on which I have addressed the House on the subject of licensing reform. I should like to think that the Consolidated Fund debate that I initiated in 1983, soon after I was elected to the House, played some small part in spurring the Government to undertake, at last, this long overdue reform. It is unnecessary for me to rehearse the history of restrictions and regulations on the sale of alcoholic drinks. It is sufficient to say that, during most of our 80 years as publicans in Pimlico, my forebears and myself have enjoyed a somewhat uneasy love-hate relationship with that old harridan the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Act 1916. We shall shed no tears if DORA finally succumbs this year. The 1916 Act may have had some relevance during the first world war, but it has none today.
I shall illustrate just a few of the ways in which the present laws relating to licensing have become anachronistic. In 1916 Britain was at war and it was essential that the war effort should be maximised. However, even if we had

not been fighting a desperate war, the lifestyle of our people was very different. Far more people worked at hard manual jobs for long hours each day on low wages. Many homes were less than comfortable and the installation of electricity was far from common. Television was a dream, or perhaps a nightmare, of the future. I guess that people went to bed early to save on the gas lamps and because it was cold indoors. Amusement was man-made. Few people had paid holidays, and, even if there had been no war, only the wealthy travelled abroad.
Let us contrast that with our lives today. The inward and outward tourist industry ensures that many foreign visitors are able to witness, at first hand, our antiquated drinking laws, while many of our people are able to experience the more relaxed hours on the Continent. It is an eye-opener to all.
The greatest difference is the greater flexibility in our working hours. The hon. Member for City of Durham talked of shift work. Many people start work early in the morning and finish early in the afternoon, for example, milkmen, postmen, policemen, delivery men and nurses. Indeed, even people working in the much abused City tailor their hours to the 24-hour markets throughout the world. Those people's working day ends as the pubs close for the mandatory afternoon break. There is no after-work pint for them.
It would be very ungracious of me not to welcome the Government's willingness to introduce the Bill. It is 15 years since the Erroll committee reported, and 10 years since the Clayson reforms were implemented in Scotland. Previous Governments have been unwilling to confront the issue, preferring to sit on the fence while allowing hon. Members successful in the Private Members' Bills' ballot to fall victim to the anti-alcohol tendency. I have criticisms of the Bill as presented today, and I hope that the reports that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will listen with an open mind to arguments deployed to amend the Bill are true.
The two major criticisms that I have concern the terminal hour, particularly on Friday and Saturday evenings, and the hours permitted for opening on Sundays. With regard to the terminal hour on Friday and Saturday, many houses with a supper hour certificate, or an extended hours certificate—often granted to disco houses, which are more rather than less likely to cause annoyance to neighbours than ordinary pubs — already offer an opportunity for legal late drinking. The option of staying open to midnight on Friday and Saturday evenings would allow licensees to offer an opportunity to customers, which undoubtedly they would welcome. If disco houses and restaurants are deemed responsible enough to open until midnight, why not the best-controlled outlet of all, the traditional British pub?
My second point of difference with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State concerns opening hours on Sundays. Let me say straight away that I do not want to see all-day opening on Sundays. My staff value their long Sunday afternoon break. However, the two-hour Sunday lunchtime session is popular with staff and customers alike. From my experience as a resident manager, I can vouch for the fact that it is the most pleasant session of the week to work behind the bar. There is no difficulty in getting staff to work on a Sunday. So popular is that short session that, increasingly, licensees are applying a Nelson eye to the clock, either before midday or after 2 pm. That is now happening in many parts of London. If customers


know of one pub where the doors open a few minutes early, they go there. In defence, other publicans tend to follow suit to defend their trade.
That brings the law into disrepute. On previous occasions I have spoken of the law being brought into disrepute, and I do not propose to repeat myself. Suffice it to say that I recognise that a law in disrepute is not a reason to change the law. However, perhaps it is a reason to look at it.
Sunday is a day when many people, whether relaxing locally or out for the day with their families, would welcome the opportunity of a more leisurely drink than the short midday to 2 pm session allows. The Licensing (Restaurant Meals) Act 1987 allows restaurants and pubs with separate rooms used as restaurants the opportunity to serve their customers with drink accompanying a meal for much longer hours on a Sunday, but that is an inequitable situation for pubs serving bar meals or just serving a cool pint of beer to their customers on a hot afternoon. There is a strong case for extending the Sunday lunchtime session to a maximum of four hours between 11 am and 3 pm. That would bring more benefit to customers and licensees alike than opening the mandatory break on, say, a Monday or Tuesday afternoon.
Much has been written of the clause in tenancy agreements, which brewers impose on their tenants, insisting that the latter must open for all the hours permitted by the law and licensing justices. This very day I signed such a tenancy agreement with that clause in it. I did so on trust that the brewers will take a sensible and responsible attitude if the Bill becomes an act.
The Brewers Society issued a statement in September this year to the National Licensed Victuallers Association, of which I am a member, stating that such clauses would be deleted from tenancy agreements and that a new clause would be inserted, the effect of which would require the hours during which the premises would open to be such as would be mutually agreed by the landlord and tenant, having regard to the needs of their customers. In the event of a dispute, there would be an arbitral procedure.
There is still suspicion among tenants fearful that the extended hours allowed under the Bill might be used as a stick by the brewers intent on dispossessing the tenant of his house by making it unviable for him. Clearly the owners of a commercial property are entitled to an input in to its use. I should prefer licensees and licensing justices to have a predominant position in deciding the appropriate hours for any house, but at the least I am convinced that it behoves each and every brewery to send out to each and every one of its tenants a letter implementing the terms of the Brewers Society's commitment for his or her house in respect of his or her current agreement. That should be done before any changes under the Bill are implemented. I recognise the position of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that that must be a point of negotiation between the parties.
I should like to refer to the abuse of alcohol and the possibility that the Bill will exacerbate the state of affairs in the United Kingdom. The National Licensed Victuallers Association, the Brewers Society and the Wine and Spirit Association are as aware as are individual licensees of the perils of drink. Indeed, trade interests give large sums each year in grants and donations for work associated with

alcohol misuse to organisations concerned with alcohol and research bodies. Britain has a low percentage of people who seriously abuse alcohol and low levels of liver cirrhosis due to alcohol. As has been said, the people who abuse it seriously almost certainly obtain the bulk of their supply from the off-licence trade because of price advantage. In any case, no publican wants a drunk on his premises, for such people disrupt other customers and put the licence at risk. The same applies to the young, for we, as licensees, are very concerned to ensure that the young do not come into licensed premises—public houses—and drink. It is disruptive and they are a nuisance.
It is generally held that moderate drinking can be beneficial to health. It would be iniquitous if the 98 per cent. of people who drink sensibly were to be penalised to try to influence the 2 per cent. who regularly abuse and who do not, in all probability, frequent that most controlled of retail outlets, the pub.
In recognising the problem of alcohol abuse, one must also recognise that anti-alcohol organisations have been guilty of peddling some misleading and, in some cases, downright untrue figures and statistics, particularly the 1986 Action on Alcohol Abuse figures, which multiplied by 200 a small sample in Malmö in Sweden, to obtain the number of deaths through drink in the United Kingdom. Even the authors of the Malmö research cautioned against such extrapolation. The circulation of misleading scare figures is profoundly unhelpful to the cause of sensible drinking. Having said that, I, too, welcome the setting up of the committee under my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal to examine the many and complex factors involved in alcohol abuse.
I operate five London pubs under tenancy. Their locations differ markedly. Some do the bulk of their trade at weekday lunchtimes, and others are busy in the evenings and at weekends. The flexibility of permitted hours offered by the Bill, particularly if amended in the two respects that I have suggested, and if applied sensibly after discussion between brewer landlord, the licensing justices and tenant licensee, will represent a major step forward to a more sensible and relaxed way of drinking in our traditional British pubs.
I for one do not believe that all pubs will use the 12 hours that will become available to them. I know for certain that mine will not, and I believe that the bulk of pubs throughout the country will not open 12 hours a day. They may tailor their present hours to more sensible and viable hours than those which, at present, they are forced to operate, as laid down by the justices and the present law.
I congratulate the Government on introducing the Bill. I, for one, support it with no equivocation and with considerable enthusiasm.

Mr. Doug Henderson: I thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I support the principle of the Bill, but not without important reservations. I firmly believe that the impact of off-sales outlets and supermarkets has changed our drinking habits dramatically, especially in two sorts of community. The first is where there is high unemployment and people find it cheaper to buy alcohol in supermarkets and off-sales outlets. The second is where there is probably much less unemployment and more wealth. There is much evidence that the yuppie drinkers who consume more wine tend to purchase it in supermarkets and off-sales outlets.
If I could he shown conclusively that extending our licensing hours leads to an increase in alcohol consumption and alcohol abuse, and if I could also be shown conclusively that that increase in abuse leads to an increase in the damage to the health of a considerable number of people, that would heavily influence my assessment of the case for extending the licensing laws. However, having heard the evidence so far in the debate—I know that there are a number of important speeches to come—I am not convinced that the link is proven. Recent Scottish experience shows that economic and social factors have far more influence on alcohol consumption than do opening hours.
In the area of Newcastle that I represent, public opinion supports the extension of licensing hours for reasons of leisure and recreation. If a publican wishes to open in the afternoon or later at night, and if the public wish to give him that trade, the licensing laws should allow that to take place. Indeed, the reforms will be widely welcomed in the social clubs which are major social centres in my constituency. They provide an invaluable community service and always ensure strict rules of conduct. Reference has been made to Conservative clubs. If anyone is in doubt whether the same strict rules apply in working men's clubs in the north of England, they should ask anyone who has fallen foul of the club secretary or steward, or perhaps more intimidatingly, the doorman. They will find that good order is kept in our clubs throughout the country.
I do not know whether there is such a thing as civilised drinking. My mother would certainly say that there is not. But I am not sure that her view is wholly representative of the public. I have always felt, from my experience north of the border, that long hours slow the pace of drinking. If I can describe its effect in the parlance of a Scottish public bar where I confess to have spent part of my youth — and I have to say that not all of my youth was misspent—longer hours "slows the swallae and reduces the par". The slowing of pace is something of a civilising influence.
My major reservation is that the Government make no provision for the protection of workers in the industry. That reservation is a sticking point. The brewers undoubtedly think that they will make bigger profits from extended hours or they would not have made such a massive investment in lobbying and advertising in recent weeks, but I want to know what the workpeople will get. If there is no protection, they will get more low pay, longer hours, more split shifts, more part-time working and fewer breaks. The pay is low enough now, as I shall show the House.
The average earnings for a barmaid, according to the 1987 new earnings survey, is £93·80 for an average 40-hour week, which is £54·30 below the average earnings for a woman. Average earnings for a barman are £133·70 for an average 46-hour week. That is £90·30 per week below the average earnings for men. Before 1986, people who worked in the industry had some protection under the rules of then governing wages councils, but, as the House knows, the wages Act 1986 stripped the councils of many of their powers. In the case of the licensed non-residential establishment Wages council, rest day protection, public holiday payment guarantees, and annual holiday entitlement were ended.
As for the licensed residential establishment wages council, spread-over payments were ended — that is

particularly important in regard to this legislation—statutory protection for intervals for rest, again a crucial issue, was stopped and holiday provisions were withdrawn. Crucially, all the wages councils — several cover this industry—lost their power to protect workers under the age of 21.
Many hon. Members regularly visit public houses and clubs, although, in case the public get the wrong idea, I should say that we do not always go there to consume alcohol. In the north of England, we often visit our constituents in such places. An hon. Member who visited a public house would notice that many of the staff are aged between 18 and 21. If the Bill is not amended, they will have little protection at their workplace. He would also notice that many of the staff were women. Two thirds of the 1 million people who work in the industry are women, and three quarters of them work part time. If the Bill is not amended, it will become a brewers' charter for bashing, our barmaids.
Defending the need for strong wages councils, Winston Churchill identified the fact that they prevent the good employer from being
undercut by the bad, and the bad employer … undercut by the worst."—[Official Report, 28 April 1909; Vol. 4, c. 388.]
I agree with that. The proper way to protect employees would be to strengthen our wages councils, which were undermined in 1986, but I am not so gullible as to believe that the Government will introduce accompanying legislation to achieve that.
Therefore, I propose that protection should be written into the Bill. The Shops Act 1950 had built-in statutory protection for employees, and is a clear precedent for dealing with young people, shift arrangements and meal breaks. I challenge the Government to include similar protection in this Bill for shifts which last longer than eight hours, shifts which finish late at night, split-shift working, rest-day working, the minimum rights of young people aged between 18 and 21, the taking of meal breaks and holiday entitlement and payment. The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), who is an employer in the industry, mentioned the importance of shift working. I hope that he will urge on the Government the need to include protection for his staff.
If the Chancellor of the Exchequer can write in protection for the BP underwriters, the Home Secretary must be able to write in protection for workers in hotels, bars and clubs. The Government cannot resist that proposal on the ideological grounds of non-intervention, because the idea of licensing laws is itself interventionist.
Despite my reservations, I shall support the Second Reading, but if the Government do not accept amendments to include protection for staff, I will no longer support it.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: It is with some regret that, in only my second speech in the House, I must express grave reservations about the Bill. I welcomed many of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), not least his Pauline conversion to the rights of the individual over the incursion of the state. I look forward to Labour Front-Bench spokesmen having an illustrious champion of the individual's rights to private education and private medicine and of denationalisation.
I speak, not from the point of view of the temperance lobby, but as what the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook called a dangerous animal—a sensible drinker. However, perspectives on that may differ, and I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) does not believe that someone who likes one, or preferably two, drinks is a sensible drinker. The fact that one enjoys a drink, or even two, is not to say that one would welcome a society in which the sun was perpetually over the yardarm — in which there were only a few hours of daylight and a great deal of twilight.
The objective of the Bill is to introduce afternoon drinking. I ask myself — it is one way of getting a sensible answer—who is likely to benefit from afternoon drinking? My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) made a persuasive and eloquent speech, saying that the Bill would benefit shift workers. The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) made a similar careful argument. But one immediately asks where it will stop. Some people come off shift at 7 am. Should pubs be open for them? Hon. Members sometimes serve a 24-hour shift and then stagger out, if only through fatigue. Should the pubs be open for us? Why select shift workers and say that those who leave their place of work at 3 pm must be allowed the right to an after-work drink?
Those who will take advantage of afternoon drinking fall largely into two categories: first, tourists and those on holiday. Were they the only people who would avail themselves of afternoon drinking, no one would have much objection to it. Those who will not be drinking in the afternoon are those who are gainfully employed and at their places of work and those who, over a lifetime, have gained the habit of drinking only at certain hours. That leaves the young and the unemployed. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was right to draw special attention to those two groups, especially to where they merge. A combination of youth, unemployment, inner-city conditions and the pubs being open all day could be extremely dangerous and will need careful thought before we allow the Bill to go through.
I do not wish to exaggerate the position, but many studies have shown a large increase in under-age drinking. I do not wish to paint a picture of schoolboys dropping in at the pub on the way home from a rugger match before they do their homework, but there is increased drinking among the young, especially the young who, by chance or by choice, are idle and have time on their hands.
I appreciate the argument that abuse does not abrogate the lawful use of alcohol, but there were advantages in the old system. It forced a break at 3 pm, so that someone who was considering drinking unwisely for the rest of the afternoon had to be determined to wait for the pub to reopen, or visit the supermarket. If he made a casual decision, the break helped him to make the right decision.
The break also creates social acceptance of certain hours of drinking. Essentially, the old law said that when someone was not supposed to be working—at lunch time and in the evenings after work—it was all right to drink. I do not know why it is that I regard with pleasure a gin and tonic at 7 o'clock in the evening but regard with revulsion a gin and tonic at 4 o'clock in the afternoon. I suspect that it lies in the habits of a lifetime and the social rule that drinking at certain hours is taboo. Unless I see evidence that alcohol consumption will not go up as a

result of the Bill, it is essential that we have those sort of taboos to encourage people voluntarily to control their drinking.
In the eloquent speeches of hon. Members we have heard that supermarkets are somehow at the root of the excesses of alcoholics. If supermarkets bear the sole blame for the alcohol problem, why is it that in a Bill that controls licensing laws we do not seize the opportunity to control the sale of alcohol in supermarkets? If the Government had done that I could look more sympathetically at the argument that the Bill will not increase alcohol consumption.
The only thing that makes me hesitate before absolutely opposing the Bill, or abstaining from voting on it, is the possibility that something will come out of the ministerial group that has been set up to achieve interdepartmental co-operation on the problems of alcoholism. However, I believe that we are putting the cart before the horse. We should have had that group, had some recommendations and had some action before we had the Bill. At least the group is there. However, my principal concern is about what we can expect to come out of a combination of departmental examinations of the problems of crime, health and social services and their relationship to alcohol.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House and from both sides of the argument have quoted many statistics, which I do not intend to repeat. However, there is one chilling statistic that has not been mentioned, although I was temporarily out of the House and it may have been quoted then. Published figures reveal that in one third of cases of child abuse there is an alcohol-related factor. At a time when child abuse is a major concern, we need to think carefully before promoting the consumption of a substance that causes or contributes to such crimes.
In the discussion of the Scottish statistics we did not hear that, in the period following liberalisation of licensing laws, cirrhosis of the liver went up by 45 per cent. in Scotland, while it went up by only 17 per cent. in England and Wales. It is an uncomfortable statistic, but it still needs to be considered.

Mr. Colvin: Will my hon. Friend give way? She is wrong.

Miss Widdecombe: I am sorry, no. My hon. Friend suggests that I am wrong. If I am wrong, the Government's published statistics are wrong. My hon. Friend should write to the Minister and ask for a correction. Statistics are cold figures. Behind every statistic on alcohol lie devastated families, ruined health and wasted lives. Above all, alcohol abuse affects the innocent, the victims of drink-driving accidents, the victims of assault and the families who have to suffer the effects of its abuse on a loved one.
The ministerial group that has been set up has in its terms of reference the phrase "It will make such recommendations as from time to time it may seem fit." That is wonderful. Anybody with elementary logic could work out that that could also read, "If from time to time no recommendations seem fit, they need not be made." I want some reassurance that there is a timetable, some definite aim, or something concrete expected from that ministerial group that will so far combat the effects of alcoholism that it will overshadow any effects of rising alcoholism that might result from the Bill. If I can have that assurance from the Dispatch Box, I shall be delighted


to vote at least in favour of referring the Bill to Committee. I hope that in Committee some of those aspects will be addressed rather more assiduously than they have been tonight.
I am not opposed in principle to making life easier for publicans or for those who want a drink during the afternoon, but the adverse social effects need to be more carefully looked at. They need more than the cursory acknowledgements that hon. Members on both sides of the House have given them. They need to be addressed in detail. I should like that assurance before I can support the Bill.

Dr. Lewis Moonie: I feel a certain sense of déjà vu, as most arguments have already been gone over at some length. I am also reminded of the old saying that there are none so deaf as those who will not hear, because when hon. Members hear statistics they automatically say that they are not true. The statistics are true.
The Bill purports to make relatively minor changes in the hours within which licensed premises in England and Wales are permitted to sell alcohol. The changes are being enthusiastically supported by the major drinks manufacturers and distributors and, sad to say, are being rushed through in indecent haste so that they may be implemented early in 1988, at, we are led to believe, the behest of the brewers. Why are the Government in such a hurry? Are Ministers blissfully unaware of the potential consequences of their actions, or are they, because of outside pressure, reprehensibly pushing through as fast as possible a measure which will damage people's health? I should like to know. Moreover, the Bill is not supported by the majority of people in England and Wales, according to recent surveys, so it makes no sense to me to proceed with such haste.
Alcohol consumption in England and Wales, as in Scotland, has risen over the decades as the price of alcohol has fallen in real terms. The damage that has risen in parallel with that increase is well documented and has been gone over today in some depth. To summarise, drinking and driving, accidents, assaults, ill treatment and deprivation of families, ill health and death have risen year after year. However, the Government propose to increase the availability of the most socially damaging substance, without any effective action to attempt to tackle the problems associated with its consumption and abuse.
I shall vote against the Bill. I am not opposed to the consumption of alcohol. I consume it myself, occasionally in some quantity, but within the security of my own home. I enjoy it in moderation. I recognise that there is a happy medium to be struck and that, given that other circumstances were tackled, there might be a case for revising the licensing laws, but surely not in the absence of action on the other problems that have been mentioned.
I do not believe that extending by one third the hours which public houses may open is a minor cosmetic change. Like other hon. Members, I do not believe that there will be no change in the level of alcohol consumed. It defies belief that the brewers and licensees, out of the goodness of their hearts, will open public houses for one third longer merely to gratify the interests of a few tourists. That is not the object. The object is to increase the sale and consumption of alcohol. There can be no other reason for the drinks industry to be pushing for the Bill to go through.
There is evidence that the relaxing of licensing laws increases consumption and, conversely, that tightening those laws reduces it. That has been the position whenever licensing laws have been changed. For example, when the licensing laws were relaxed in Finland, consumption increased dramatically. When the Finns became alarmed about the rise and licensing laws were made more restrictive 10 years later, consumption fell. In the three years following the implementation of the Clayson proposals in Scotland, the consumption of alcohol rose. The fact that it fell between 1980–82 cannot be attributed, in the opinion of the experts, to the Clayson report. The fall in consumption is thought to be due to the recession and the massive increase in taxation that took place in 1981.
There has been a fall in the number of convictions for drunkenness because the police no longer charge people with being drunk and disorderly. That offence used to he common, but I cannot remember the last occasion when I became aware of it being dealt with by the magistrates. It seems that the police no longer deal in that way with those who are drunk and disorderly. The evidence on which the Clayson committee based its claim and on which the Government now base their case — that the implementation of the Clayson proposals in Scotland has been successful—is spurious.
I believe that the relaxation of licensing laws in Scotland over the past 10 years has produced no beneficial effect on Scottish society. In the Clayson report we read about the family pubs that would serve soft drinks and tea and coffee. We were told that these would be cosy, social places in which the public would congregate. There have not been many pubs of that sort appearing in my neck of the woods over the past 10 years, and I do not think that many have appeared in other parts of Scotland.
The result of the Bill will be more physical and mental damage. We shall see more under-age drinking, more problems for women and more drunken driving, leading to more road accidents and more deaths. There is a clear difference between England and Scotland in the incidence of accidents involving drunken driving. When I intervened in the speech of the Home Secretary on this issue, the right hon. Gentleman refused to answer me. In Scotland, the peak time for such accidents begins at 4 pm, whereas it begins at 10 pm in England. At 4 pm, my children and the children of others are returning home from school, and it is they who will be so much at risk from afternoon drinkers.
We know that some applications for licences for premises on which alcohol may be served and consumed are refused. One such application was recently refused in my home town. Why was that? The application was rejected because there would be inadequate parking facilities. What sort of reason is that for a magistrates court to reject the application of a licensee? The provision of "adequate" parking facilities increases the likelihood of people drinking and driving. That is symptomatic of our attitude to alcohol. There is the casual attitude that we can introduce a small measure such as the Bill without doing harm to anyone, and in doing so we ignore all the problems that alcohol produces for the people.
We must not ignore the problems that are caused by the consumption of alcohol. Indeed, the Government are establishing a committee to investigate the issue, which will be the first of its sort to be formed. I understand that all Departments that have any link with the provision and


sale of alcohol will be involved. Against that background we are galloping to enact the Bill before the committee has a chance to report its findings and perhaps to produce some inconvenient conclusions for Ministers to digest.
I worked for many years in psychiatry and preventive medicine and I, like many others, have seen the damage and suffering that have arisen from the increased consumption of alcohol. Psychiatrists, general practitioners and those in the medical profession working in general wards with beds taken up by those suffering from the late effects of liver failure—cirrhosis—along with social workers, policemen and the representatives of many volunteer agencies, have provided us with a great deal of information over the past week or so. They all point to a massive amount of evidence that an increase in the availability of alcohol increases the consumption of it. The workers in the field, as it were, are opposed to the change because they know what the result will be.
The problem of alcohol in our society must be faced honestly and constructively. It must be addressed in the House by co-ordinated action that crosses departmental boundaries. Every Minister is involved in some way. When a strategy has been developed, and not before, let the Government bring forward a reform of the licensing laws, if that is seen as a reasonable and constructive part of the plan. Let us have no truck with this shabby attempt to preempt effective action and let us not pretend that licensing has nothing to do with the real problems of alcohol abuse. I urge hon. Members on both side of the House to join me in opposing this ill-considered piece of proposed legislation. Let use send the Minister away to think seriously about the problems that it will cause.

Mr. Roger Gale: I am glad to have the opportunity to take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie). I have a properly declared interest — it appears in the Members' Register — in Scottish and Newcastle Breweries. I spent some time with the company and had the opportunity to study the position north of the border. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) have graphically described the situation as they see it, and I would not presume to improve upon their special and local knowledge. However, I shall offer the House some comparisons and personal observations.
First, I challenge the assertion that there has been an increase in consumption north of the border related to the change in the law. I endeavoured to intervene in the speech of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) on this issue, but the right hon. Gentleman declined to give way to allow me to do so. I suspect that he did so because he knows that there is no fact or statistic to substantiate the claim that there has been an increase in the consumption of alcohol in Scotland in the 10 years since the law was changed and that that is related to the change in the law. It is correct that there has been a small increase in overall consumption, and it is correct also that that is attributable to an increase in the number of female drinkers. That is the direct result of a social change and has nothing to do with the change in the law. It stems from the fact that the premises provided for the consumption of alcohol have improved.
I spent some time on Tyneside 25 years ago, and at that time it was a symbol of a boy's virility that on his 18th birthday he was given membership of the local social club by his father, uncle or the family generally. He then became a man and went to drink beer with men. Twenty-five years have passed and the days of the big swill on Tyneside are over. Social clubs of the sort to which I have referred are in decline. That is due partly to the decline of the smoke-stack industries and the rise of employment in high-tech industries. The after-work thirst is no longer as great. It is due also to a desire, especially on the part of the young, for improved surroundings and circumstances in which young men and their girl friends can drink and eat.
The company to which I was attached and its major competitor north of the border have made a major investment in modern premises of good design and with good decor. In some instances family rooms were provided. The company has ensured that it provides excellent facilities for its customers. It seeks to provide a relaxed atmosphere and what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred to as "a more cheerful and welcoming pub." There was no comparison between what I found last year north of the border — I spent a considerable amount of time there — and what I experienced over 20 years ago in Sauchiehall street on a Saturday night. It was not possible to make a relevant comparison. In hard, statistical terms there has probably been little change in alcohol consumption, but I believe from what I have seen that socially there has been an immeasurable improvement.
This must be contrasted with what has been found by myself and my colleagues who represent seaside constituencies in the north-east, the north-west and the south coast of England. On many Saturdays in the summer we experience what is known as the beano party. A coachload of day trippers empties a crate of brown ale kept in the back of the coach before arriving. They tip out of the coach and into the pub and are hell-bent on getting drunk. At 2.30 on a Saturday afternoon the day visitors, undeniably having had far too much to drink, empty themselves en masse—or are emptied by the police—on to the sea front. The reason why they drink so fast is that they say, "We've got 10 or 15 minutes, lads, to get another five pints in before we're chucked out." Not surprisingly, that creates problems of crowd control.
The same people who are thrown out of the public houses go on to supermarkets or off-licences in my constituency and others and clear the shelves. They take canned beer to the sea front and drink it there, with no control whatever. It is nonsense that a landlord is required to empty his pub at 2.30 on a hot summer's afternoon so that his customers can go across the road to the off-licence and take iced cans of lager or beer from the fridge only to go back to the pub where they will sit and drink on the doorstep, leaving the cans for the landlord to clear up. It is nonsense, too, that one can buy alcohol in an off-licence from 8.30 am until 10.30 pm without a break, while one is not allowed sensibly and responsibly to consume alcohol in a pub, where one is under supervision.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook referred to those "dangerous animals", the "responsible drinkers". I should like to think that I could class myself as one of them. The right hon. Gentleman said that we did not understand the problems. However, I spent some time training in the counselling of those with alcohol-related


problems. I have worked with problem teenagers and made television programmes for them, and I think that I am aware of the problems. I have also been involved personally in the treatment of alcoholics. I know that there is a dark side. Anyone who has had to search a home to find half a bottle of whisky hidden in the stuffing of an armchair or the cistern of a lavatory knows that. Anyone who has seen the dog being taken for a walk too frequently and who knows that somewhere out there in the hedgerows is hidden a half bottle of spirits knows that. Anybody who has had to strip someone off and remove urine-soaked underwear and vomit knows that. Anyone who has experienced the knock at midnight and the request, "Please come and identify the bodies; there's been a crash," knows that there is a problem.
However, that problem would not be exacerbated by reforms such as that before the House. The problem is caused by the solitary abuse of alcohol bought cheaply from off-licences and supermarkets. The problem of under-age drinking will be solved, I believe, by education — by the teaching of what are known as "sensible drinking skills". The brewers and the drink trade probably contribute more than any other sector to education programmes for young people. I have a daughter of 15. She is bright, responsible and attractive, and I hope that I am justifiably proud of her. She has attractive male and female friends, many of whom look older than 18, and it would be naive of me to think that some of them do not sometimes go into public houses. I would not wish to encourage young people to break the law. However, I would sooner the young drank in the controlled atmosphere of a public house, under the watchful eye of a good landlord, than that they cleared the supermarket shelves, then had a wild party and got drunk at home.
It is a pity that the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) cast a slur on the brewers—I think inadvertently—because I do not believe that the Bill is driven by the profit motive or that it would cause a massive increase in the consumption of alcohol. I believe that the Bill paves the way for the better use, and probably the better management, of public houses. Many brewers, landlords and tenants are seeking to diversify into soft drinks, tea, coffee and food. The Bill will result in an increase in employment. I hope that there will be an increase in profits, too. But I do not believe that that profit or the increase in jobs will be related solely to an increase in the consumption of alcohol.
The Bill has been described as a measure introduced with indecent haste. The Erroll committee reported 15 years ago and the Clayson reforms were introduced 10 years ago. If 10 to 15 years of consideration represents indecent haste, I shudder to think what real speed might look like. The effects of such a measure have been tried and proven in Scotland over a period of 10 years. Those effects are socially acceptable and they will be good for the tourist industry. Safeguards are built into the Bill to prevent nuisance and abuse. The Bill is a modest measure on which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary should be congratulated, and I hope that it receives wide support throughout the House.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that the Register of Members' Interests is not yet available? According to a resolution passed by the House on 12 June 1975

any interest disclosed in a copy of the Register of Members' Interests shall be regarded as sufficient disclosure for the purpose of taking part in any Division in the House or in any of its Committees.
The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) properly disclosed an interest. However, I am concerned that many hon. Members who have not taken part in the debate have not been able to disclose their interest. When similar circumstances arose in 1981 in connection with the Lloyds Bank Bill, Mr. Speaker felt it necessary to issue guidance on the matter. He said that it would help if hon. Members with financial interests did not vote. I wonder whether you, Sir, could consider the matter before the vote so that hon. Members representing the brewers' interests who have not been able to declare a financial interest may receive guidance that they should not take part in the vote. I understand that the brewers are fairly well represented on the Tory Benches.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that every right hon. and hon. Member will vote in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House.

Mr. Graham Allen: I have two difficulties. First, as a new Member I am faced with my first free vote. I therefore have the serious problem of having to analyse the debate and listen to the contributions rather than simply turning up and voting on request. I am trying very hard to overcome that handicap and I have been in the Chamber as much as possible.
Secondly, this is a difficult debate because it involves complex issues. I have listened to the arguments in all conscience and tried to reach a decision. I have found that some facts support one side of the arguments while other statistics support the other side of the argument. All hon. Members have called in aid medical authority and some hon. Members have called in aid the great and eminent authorities of other professions.
We should also consider the civil liberties not just of those who wish to drink at the time and place they feel are appropriate but of those who suffer—the people injured in car accidents, the children injured on the way home by an afternoon drinker and the children abused by parents who come home drunk during the day or night.
I was disturbed by the Home Secretary's remarks about the possibility of amending the Bill in Committee. His almost throwaway line about also extending drinking hours on Sunday frightened many of those who entered the debate with an open mind. Many people, including me, will wonder what other secrets may emerge in Committee.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Plainly, hon. Members can table any amendments they choose in Committee, but the Government will oppose any relaxation of Sunday licensing hours. We will try to persuade our friends to support us.

Mr. Allen: I am grateful for that reassurance. But the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when the Home Secretary gave his reasoning. The right hon. Gentleman felt that he could not get away with it this time and that such a proposal would compromise the rest of the Bill. If Conservative Members have a different interpretation of his comments, I shall gladly give way to allow them to make their view plain.
I regret the fact that Conservative Members have not been given the same liberty as Labour Members and been


given a free vote. Because we have a free vote, democratic decision-making processes can be brought to bear, which perhaps does not happen in other circumstances, and the facts can be considered. I suggest that we take that process a stage further, so that the Bill's broader effects—not just its effects on hours and licences—such as health, social and economic implications, are reviewed and better understood than they would be under normal procedures in the House. I suggest that we create either a Select Committee or a Special Standing Committee to examine in detail for a few weeks or perhaps a month or two—I am not familiar with these operations — the various facets of the legislation and their possible effects.
A Special Standing Committee could call as witnesses representatives of landlords and their various associations, brewers' representatives, representatives of the trade unions of the full-time and part-time workers in the industry and the medical and professional experts to whom reference has been made. That Committee would take evidence, including that being considered by the Wakeham review. Its members would have the benefit, when they become members of the Standing Committee, of having heard for six, eight or even 10 weeks solid evidence from all parts of the political spectrum and all the interested groups which wish to contribute.
With that in mind, after the Second Reading vote, a motion will be moved calling for the question of a Special Standing Committee to examine the Bill.

Dr. Moonie: Only if the Government win the Second Reading Division.

Mr. Allen: As my hon. Friend reminds me, that will happen only if the Government win. My mathematics may be a little awry, but I would not put a drink on the vote going the other way. I commend the proposal that a Special Standing Committee be constituted so that we can carry out our functions relating to the Bill.

Mr. Michael Colvin: I have never failed to declare an interest in the House, no matter what it is. My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) has never failed to remind me to declare an interest in any debate that may relate to the licensed trade. Therefore, I happily declare an interest on two counts. The first is as a parliamentary adviser to the National Licensed Victuallers Association. I say "adviser", and not "spokesman," because there are many occasions on which I do not agree with the association's view. An adviser would be useless if he did not occasionally disagree with those who appointed him to tender advice. Secondly, I declare an interest as a tenant licensee. I do not call myself a publican because the manager of my pub has a fit if I ever go behind the bar to pull a pint. He knows that on those occasions people usually get over the measure and are charged under the price. Nevertheless, I have some knowledge of the trade, and it is with that knowledge to assist me that I take part in the debate.
I pay tribute to the establishment during the last Parliament of the all-party group for the licensed trade under the joint chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins). That group assisted my hon.

Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) in promoting his private Member's Bill which, alas, was killed off—if that is not too strong a description—by my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point and others who shared his view. I do not think it will be quite as easy to kill off this Bill, because it has Government backing. The Bill also enjoys a great measure of all-party support, which we all welcome. It has the benefit of a so-called "mandate", because the Conservative party was the only party to include in its general election manifesto a commitment to reform our outdated licensing laws.
I accept, to some extent, the suggestion of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) that this is the sort of measure that should be considered by a Special Standing Committee, but the hon. Gentleman has overlooked the fact that this issue has been debated ad nauseam for 15 years. I think that all the views that have to be expressed have already been expressed, to such an extent that many of us are sick and tired of hearing them and are profoundly relieved that the Government have decided at last to bring forward what many have described as a "modest" measure.
The Bill has been described by some hon. Members who seemed to be talking against it as a "step-by-step" measure. I welcome that. The Government would be wise not to proceed too far too quickly. We should get the Bill on the statute book and then consider in the light of experience where we should go next. That is what happened with Scotland, and it is on the grounds of the Scottish experience that the Bill will find its passage easier.
As so many people have said, the Bill is a long overdue reform. A. J. P. Taylor described our licensing laws as
a lasting memento of the Great War".
I believe that he was referring to the Defence of the Realm (Amendment) (No. 3) Act 1915, which related to the danger of munitions workers drinking in the afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood referred to the many places where tourists can obtain drinks in the middle of the afternoon, although he omitted to mention riverboats from Westminster pier. He was right to point out that there are many places where people can obtain a drink when it is not possible to do so in a traditional pub. That is the nub of the case for reform. The law is daft and needs reform.
The threat to the traditional British pub is another reason for reform. My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point has often waxed eloquent in the House on the merits of the traditional English pub. I would argue that my right hon. Friend is himself a traditionalist. Yet when it comes to a measure of this kind he goes off at a tangent—some might say over the top—in arguing against a measure that would enhance the British pub and enable it to survive in the face of mounting and at times unfair competition. I shall give some figures to show the amount of competition that has arisen in recent years. In 1904 there were 6,600 clubs in the United Kingdom. There are more than 30,000 today. In 1904 there were 90,000 pubs. Today the total has declined to around 70,000. The trend for clubs is up, and the trend for pubs is down.

Mr. Ian McCartney: The hon. Gentleman talks of an unfair trading relationship between pubs and clubs, but clubs, whether political or otherwise, provide an outlet for the brewers where the on-costs are met by members of the club, so they are very profitable for the brewers. Moreover, landlords and brewers do not provide


the social aspects and the services that are found in clubs in communities. The Bill will not redress the balance. It will have the opposite effect and distort the trading relationship. As a supporter of clubs, I should be most disappointed if the measure was used to distort trading patterns to the disadvantage of clubs.

Mr. Cohin: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. At present, clubs have a somewhat unfair advantage over pubs. They benefit from measures such as those related to gambling and amusement machines with prizes. I take no brief from the brewers, but I imagine that they would he keen to see an increase in the number of clubs as well as in the number of pubs.
Another aspect of competition for the traditional English pub is the proliferation of outlets, a subject touched on by several of my hon. Friends. The way in which people can walk into off-licences, grocers' shops, supermarkets, wine shops and so on, and buy drink, often without any supervision from behind the counter, is most alarming. Indeed, I believe that it is perfectly legal for people under age to walk into a cash-and-carry warehouse and walk out with a case of wine, provided that they have the money to pay for it. If the Government wish to deal with under-age drinking and alcohol abuse, they should consider the proliferation of off-licences and the like. That was a point made by many hon. Members who referred to the dangers of under-age drinking.

Mr. Allen: Rather than simply suggesting that someone somewhere should look at that, does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is exactly the kind of point that could be examined in detail by a Special Standing Committee? Will he therefore consider supporting that suggestion?

Mr. Colvin: I do not support such a procedure in this case, as I believe that the issue has been debated quite enough, both in public and in private.
With regard to alcohol abuse and the dangers of underage drinking, some hon. Members suggested that the publican was at fault in permitting it. In fact, a publican who permits it puts his livelihood on the line. For that reason, the public house is probably the most controlled and socially acceptable place for drinking to take place. The hon. Member for Kirkaldy (Dr. Moonie), who is a doctor, referred to the dangers of drinking in isolation. That cannot happen in a pub, but it can happen at home if people stock up with alcohol from supermarkets.
On the question of under-age drinking, the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) that identity cards should be carried seemed a good idea and one that could perhaps be debated on another occasion.
I think it is generally accepted that there is public support for the measure. The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) claimed that that was not so, but a survey published this month showed that there was substantial support in England and Wales, and that the measure was backed by a majority of pubgoers. The survey is entitled
Attitudes to Longer Pub Hours
and was carried out by Public Attitude Surveys Research Limited on its own initiative, without any pressure group sponsorship. 'The survey found that just over half—51 per cent.—of all adults in England and Wales thought that pubs should be allowed to open for longer in the afternoons for at least some days of the week, whilst only

35 per cent. were against any afternoon opening. The survey also looked at the attitudes of regular pubgoers, whose support for the Bill was also clear. Among those who visit a pub or club for a drink at least once a week, 64 per cent. support afternoon opening on one or more days, and 55 per cent. specifically want Sunday afternoon opening. That is pretty strong support.
A number of hon. Members have referred to what they describe as the "drinking-up rule." Rather more crudely, I would call it the "10-minute swill." It is acknowledged by the trade and by customers that more flexible opening hours and longer opening at night would reduce that danger. As we see far too often, the so-called "one for the road" often becomes one for the morgue.
Several hon. Members have mentioned the possibility of additional jobs being created, and estimates have varied between 25,000 and 50,000. Christie's, the estate agents who specialise in the licensed trade, suggested that almost 100,000 jobs might be generated. I endorse what was said by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), that there should be proper negotiations between employers and employees about the rates of pay for an extremely arduous job. Perhaps that is why employees' organisations were not exactly quick to voice their support for the campaign for flexible hours. However, generally speaking, they now support the proposals.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) questioned increased consumption resulting from the proposed reforms. Everyone acknowledges that consumption might increase. However, although the evidence in Scotland shows increased consumption, it is not directly attributable to flexible hours. That could be the case in England and Wales as well. The important aspect of flexible hours is the increase in other forms of business in public houses—meals, snacks and coffee—and is one reason why additional employees will be required. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook did not believe that additional jobs would be created without a massive increase in alcohol consumption. However, people use pubs to eat and to drink beverages, and are not necessarily going to consume alcohol.
Many hon. Members have referred to the Scottish experience. When my right hon. Friend reviewed the liberalisation of licensing laws in Scotland, with the benefit of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, he concluded that the majority thought that extending licensing hours had resulted in a more sensible pattern of drinking. Certainly there has not been the explosion of lawlessness predicted by the doom merchants. The number of drink-related offences is down, and although the revised licensing laws cannot be the sole factor for that, there can be no doubt that reform has played its part.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) and the hon. Member for Kirkcalcly referred to the impact of drink on health. I rudely interrupted my hon. Friend and said that her facts were wrong. She suggested that there had been an increase in deaths from cirrhosis of the liver because of the more flexible drinking hours in Scotland. That is manifestly wrong. A detailed survey by the specialist alcohol unit at Edinburgh university, conducted by Dr. Martin Plant and Mr. John Duffy, show that health harm indicators were neutral — that licensing hour changes had neither improved nor worsened them. They also noted that public


order offences had shown a marked improvement. The figures are interesting. Cirrhosis takes several years to reach a terminal condition, so 1976 should not be taken as the base. Indeed, 1981 would be a fairer base, and between that year and 1986, deaths in Scotland from cirrhosis of the liver were down 16 per cent., while in England and Wales they had risen by 14 per cent. Those are the real facts.
I wish to refer to some of the shortcomings of the Bill. The right to open from 11 am to 11 pm is welcome, but surely it would be better if there was a right to open for any 12 hours between 10 am and midnight, with the licensee deciding what hours were best. For the majority of licensees, afternoon opening may not be worth while. The licensee understands the local trading conditions and, after all, if freedom of choice is an important principle, he should be allowed to choose.
Secondly, the right of the licensee to determine the hours that he will trade is important. Should the brewer insist on imposing the so-called permitted hours clause in licensees' agreements, it should be resisted. I doubt whether the Bill is the right vehicle for changing the law. Perhaps we can get support from the Opposition when it comes to re-examining the landlord and tenant legislation, which needs to be reformed to give licensees protection against brewers who, in some cases, can use the permitted hours clause to get rid of tenants.
There has been much debate about pubs opening on Sundays. Today the House has had a great deal to say about events at Enniskillen and has expressed outrage, anger, concern and sympathy for those in Northern Ireland. It is ironic that the last time the House debated licensing laws was to permit pubs to open on Sundays. I hope that the House will think again about the facility for England and Wales. If an amendment is brought forward in Committee, I ask my right hon. Friend to think carefully about it before being firmly against it.
I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the measure. Britain is still one of the most sober nations. The Bill will enable it stay sober.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: The debate has shown hon. Members' strong concern about problems related to the misuse of alcohol. That anxiety has led hon. Members on both sides of the House to declare their opposition to the Bill, and for many it overrides the acknowledgement that our existing licensing laws may not be perfect.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) pointed out that Opposition Members will have a free vote. In view of the speeches made by many Conservative Members, I wonder what the outlook would be if the Government had a free vote. I shall vote against the Bill, and I urge anyone who shares my concern about alcohol abuse to do the same.
Some hon. Members are opposed to alcohol as a matter of principle or on grounds of religion. I respect such views, although I do not share them. My opposition to the Bill is not based on any killjoy motive. I enjoy a social drink and, like many hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I regard myself as a responsible drinker, but I am not convinced that we need to extend pub opening hours

to meet a need or demand for extra time for social drinking. The arguments against extra opening far outweigh any advantages to the social drinker.
Earlier today, the Home Secretary acknowledged that alcohol abuse is a significant problem in our society. The Government should tackle that problem before encouraging greater consumption of alcohol.
I remind the House of the size of the problem that we face. In the United Kingdom, we spend over £16,000 million a year on alcohol. The consumption of alcohol has more than doubled over the past 30 years—a staggering increase, which has largely been related to the cost of drink. The Home Secretary said that he did not know whether the Bill would lead to an increase in the consumption of alcohol. He acknowledged that it might do so, but he said also that, even if consumption increases, abuses may not increase. I ask the Under-Secretary of State to tell the House of the evidence for that suggestion. Every increase in alcohol consumption has led to increased problems of alcohol abuse. Why should it be different now? At present, alcohol abuse costs the country £2 billion each year. There is a vast cost to our Health Service and to industry. Even Government research shows that, through alcohol abuse, industry loses between 8 million and 14 million working days a year—far more than are lost through strikes.
Alcohol abuse costs the country over £5 million per day. That does not include the individual and family misery of those directly affected or the impact on those who are victims of the many who turn to crime. Alcohol is often a factor in criminal activity, including, most significantly, drinking and driving. One in five of all deaths on the road is the result of drinking and driving. Each year between 1,400 and 1,500 people die as a result of drinking and driving and 8,000 people are found guilty each month of driving when over the limit. Half of them have driven with twice the legal limit of alcohol in their blood. Since the introduction of the breathalyser, more than 1 million people have been found guilty of driving when over the limit. There is a dreadful picture of avoidable deaths.
The misuse of alcohol also does much damage in other ways. About 45 per cent. of violent crimes are committed by people who have been drinking—60,000 crimes per year. Alcohol misuse is involved in half of all crimes, in two thirds of suicides, in one third of all cases of child abuse, in many cases of domestic violence and in one third of all divorces.
Alcohol abuse leads to premature death and to avoidable health problems for many people. As the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) said, deaths from cirrhosis have increased during the past 15 years from 1,600 a year to more than 3,000, hospital admissions of people with alcohol-related mental disorders have increased in the same period from 8,000 to 15,000 and one in four hospital admissions are alcohol-related. About 36 per cent. of accidents involving pedestrians are alcohol-related, as are 33 per cent. of all domestic accidents. Many fires and many deaths in fires are also related to alcohol. Action on Alcohol Abuse put the figure at 52 per cent. The brewers say that we do not need to worry because the figure is only 36 per cent. About 45 per cent. of all fatal accidents involving young people are alcohol-related. Figures from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents show that 20 per cent. of drownings occur after alcohol has been consumed.
While we must all be horrified that the misuse of drugs kills many young people in this country, 10 times as many youngsters are killed or seriously injured by the misuse of alcohol. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Royal College of General Practitioners has estimated that there are 40,000 preventable deaths each year in the United Kingdom. It is now generally accepted that alcohol is the third largest killer in this country after heart disease and cancer.

Mr. Hurd: That body supports the Bill.

Mrs. Taylor: The Home Secretary says that the royal college supports the Bill. I shall come to that in a moment.
It is not surprising that representatives of all the medical royal colleges are against the Bill. At their meeting on Friday, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Surgeons of England — I believe that the Royal College of General Practitioners was represented — the Royal College of Occupational Medicine, the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh and the Royal College of Physicians of Glasgow announced their opposition to the Bill because they said that it would make alcohol more available, that there would be more drink-related problems and that it would cause more harm to our society. They accept, as do many Ministers, that the cost of alcohol misuse is £2 billion per year.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Is the hon. Lady therefore suggesting a reduction in the current licensing hours?

Mrs. Taylor: I am willing to discuss any details and perhaps we could discuss that in Committee. If the hon. Gentleman wants to put forward some positive suggestions for reducing alcohol abuse, some of us will be open-minded in Committee about any means of doing so.
The medical profession realises that alcohol is putting an extra strain on our doctors at the very time when the Health Service is crying out for resources. Yet against that background the Minister has chosen to introduce legislation to relax the licensing laws. Why? The cynics may say that it is because of pressure from the brewers—a simple reward for all the poster sites made available during the general election. I believe that the Home Office is far less willing to move against alcohol and more inclined to be swayed by the brewers than other Departments, although perhaps I am exaggerating the influence of those concerned about alcohol.
Earlier this year the Secretary of State for Social Services said:
We have to go further in persuading people who are not anywhere near becoming dependent on alcohol that their consumption at the wrong time during the working day can be damaging.
He also stated:
Because it is so widely and pleasurably used, the general public is largely ignorant of the cost of alcoholic misuse to our society.
The recognition of that problem is perhaps the reason why the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) was moved from the DHSS, just as previous Ministers who have been convinced about the dangers of alcohol or smoking have been moved.
The Opposition want to be positive and to help the Minister by suggesting some of the steps that he should take to deal with alcohol abuse before we legislate. The Minister should at least delay the Bill until he has received

the views of his interdepartmental committee which, as the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) suggested, could monitor the evidence in Scotland. Alternatively, the Home Secretary and the Minister could support the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) to send the Bill to a Special Standing Committee.
There are other steps which the Minister should take. Whether or not he proceeds with the legislation, he should tighten the law on drink-driving. As I have said, 1,400 to 1,500 lives are lost unnecessarily each year. More lives will be lost if the Bill is passed, especially if there is more late afternoon drinking which will endanger youngsters who come home from school and play outside. My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) pointed out that the peak accident hour for drinking and driving has shifted to the late afternoon in Scotland. If the Scottish pattern is repeated, we shall, as Dr. James Dunbar, the Tayside police surgeon pointed out, have 50 to 100 more deaths a year at this critical playing time for children in England and Wales. Even supporters of the Bill can see a need for action on drink-driving.
We should have random breath tests and reduce the limit of alcohol allowed in the blood of a driver. The hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) said that a little alcohol — a glass of wine or two — did not matter. Indeed, he implied that Members of Parliament are obliged to drink that much at receptions; only a man could have made that remark. Obviously, it matters how much people drink. It is a fact that at 60 mg per 100 ml a driver is twice as likely to have an accident as a non-drinker. At 80 mg, which is the present limit, a driver is four times more likely to have an accident. The limit should be reduced and we should consider a still lower rate for new drivers who are usually young. That could be helpful.

Mr. Robert Banks: Does the hon. Lady agree that it is reasonable to drink a glass of wine or two and to drive a car afterwards?

Mrs. Taylor: The Minister's advice is that if one is driving it is better to abstain completely. We should all do well to heed that advice.
The third thing that the Government should do—it might help the hon. Member for Harrogate in his predicament about what to do at receptions — is to encourage the drinking of non-alcoholic or low-alcohol drinks. A whole range of those drinks is now available, and the Government could do simple things to help that part of the drinks industry. Although I am generally in favour of raising the tax on alcohol at least in line with inflation, I believe that there is one area on which the Government could act directly. It is wrong that lower-strength alcoholic beers and wines should be taxed at the same rate as their higher-strength counterparts. Simple measures such as correcting that defect would help to deter alcohol abuse.
The fourth thing that the Government should do before relaxing licensing laws is to deal with the advertising of alcohol. Several countries that treat that problem seriously have already banned advertising on television. I am not sure whether that is the answer, but it is in the Government's power to alter the balance of spending on the advertising of alcohol. Last year, £200 million was spent on advertising by the drinks industry. That is £60 a second. The Government's proportionate response to that £60, in terms of spending on alcohol education, is 10p.
In the single month of December, the drinks industry will spend more than £20 million encouraging us to drink more over Christmas. The total budget of the Department of Transport's campaign on safer driving for a full year is £2·5 million, and it is planning to reduce that next year. That is completely petty by comparison with what is spent on encouraging people to drink more.
I want to say a word about young people; hon. Members on both sides of the House have recognised this subject as a major problem. The Health Education Authority's survey, which showed that 65 per cent. of all 14 to 15-year-olds and 30 per cent. of all 11 to 12-year-olds have had a drink in the past seven days, is worrying for everyone. A person arrested for being drunk is more likely to be a 16-year-old boy than a middle-aged man. On Friday, we had a debate on crime prevention, during which the Minister of State, Home Office emphasised that the peak age group for crime is that of teenage youths, many of whom offend while under the influence of drink.
It is not easy to determine what could be done to stop that. Spending money on education about alcohol is obviously a factor; but much more important is the whole atmosphere and image of drinking. That atmosphere encourages young people to think that success, both economic and social, is linked with the advertisers' image of drinking. The right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) emphasised that fact. He explained that alcohol is a much more serious problem than glue, drugs and all the other things, yet it does not have the priority that it should from the Government.
There is much that could and should be done before we legislate to change licensing laws. The Government may soon be advised by its own advisory body, which was set up, only recently, to take a different course from that which the Minister is proposing. The Home Secretary never answered the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook about why he has set up the interdepartmental committee under the Lord Privy Seal while pressing ahead with the Bill. Why legislate first and examine the evidence and obtain the advice second? Why is the Secretary of State doing things with this haste and in this order? Perhaps the explanation can be found in something that the Minister of State said on Friday; perhaps he was referring to the committee chaired by the Lord Privy Seal when he said
It is sometimes said in Whitehall that setting up interministerial groups is a mark of complete despair and that they are unlikely to he effective." — [Official Report, 6 November 1987; Vol. 121, c. 1177.]
I do not believe that the Government want positive measures from that interdepartmental committee, because they have already prejudged the issue and that is why they are rushing the Bill through.
The Home Secretary said nothing that takes us any further in dealing with the problems of alcohol abuse. He did not announce one initiative and did not even try to reassure the House by telling it that new measures are on the way. His speech was a one-sided case for liberalising the licensing laws and he said little about action on the dangers and the damage caused by alcohol. He was asked by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) why he had not gone further and included Sunday opening hours in the Bill. With complete honesty, the Home Secretary admitted that that was for tactical

reasons. He said that he did not want to overload the Bill and endanger its success. When pressed, the Home Secretary refused to be drawn on whether he would support a Back-Bench amendment. That was later clarified in an intervention by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, and that happened after obvious and hasty consultation outside the Chamber. I hope that the Home Secretary will stick to the assurances given by his junior Minister, because several of his hon. Friends have indicated their intention to press firmly for extending the Bill to Sunday opening.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us that not only will the Government vote against all attempts to extend the Bill to Sunday, but they will also vote against any attempt automatically to extend opening hours to midnight. If he will not give that assurance, it will be clear that the Bill is the thin end of the wedge and is not concerned with the problems caused by extra drinking. The Home Secretary implied that he would like further to extend opening hours and would like to extend the changes to Sundays, and that only tactics had stopped him.

Mr. Hurd: I think that in my speech I met that point three times, and explained why I did not think it sensible to overload the Bill by including Sundays.

Mrs. Taylor: That is another admission by the right hon. Gentleman that he would like to do that, but does not feel that he could get away with it at this time. If the Bill is accepted, there will be extra drinking. About 90 to 95 per cent. of adults in Britain already drink alcohol. Therefore, the emphasis of the Bill and the reason behind it cannot be to attract new drinkers. The emphasis will be to increase the consumption of those who already drink, but nothing will be done about drinking and driving, crime and alcohol, the problems of under-age drinking, the weight of advertising or the lack of education about alcohol.
The Bill will make changes, but will do nothing to improve the safeguards and reduce alcohol abuse. It cannot be supported. Every increase in alcohol consumption in Britain has led to an increase in alcohol-related problems. Simply to encourage more drinking, as this Bill does, without providing safeguards is irresponsible. I urge hon. Members to oppose the Bill.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The Bill is founded on a proposition with which I hope all hon. Members will agree, that restrictions that cannot be justified in terms of principle or of practical application should not remain part either of our law or of our national life. It is because there are elements in our licensing laws that are unduly restrictive and that cannot be justified that we are asking the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
That approach has been supported in express terms by the British Medical Association and the Royal College of General Practitioners. Both bodies wrote to us formally, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has read to the House what they said. They gave our measure express and clear support.
Before I respond to the arguments, it is right that I should remind the House of the main features of the Bill, the changes that it makes and those that it does not make. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir


B. Braine) said, it is a modest Bill, the main object of which is to do away with the compulsory afternoon closing period of two and a half hours on every day save Sunday. It is a reforming Bill, in that it improves procedures and removes unjustified features within existing practice. I was very glad that my right hon. Friend was able to support some of the measures in that regard.
It is a balanced Bill because it gives local residents, the police and justices a greater power to revoke licences than they previously enjoyed. Of course, it is a Bill that is associated with a reinforced commitment on the part of the Government to bring together, co-ordinate and give fresh impetus to those departmental policies that are designed to tackle the problems of alcohol abuse. That is the purpose, the justification and the long-term strategy of the ministerial group chaired by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal. I very much hope that this ministerial group will not disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe).

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I wish to ask the Minister a simple question. If this interdepartmental committee is so important, why is the Minister pushing forward this legislation before that committee reports?

Mr. Hogg: That is precisely the point to which I shall come very shortly, if the hon. Lady will be patient.
I wish to deal with several issues raised in the debate, including that mentioned by the hon. Lady. The first and principal question is whether the Bill, if passed, will lead to a significant increase in the consumption or misuse of alcohol. I want to make it plain that I do not accept that the Bill, if passed, will lead to a significant increase in the consumption or misuse of alcohol. [HON. MEMBERS: "How do you known?"] I am trying to explain in some detail to Opposition Members the evidence that supports that conclusion.
There are a number of points on which we need to focus. First, the relaxation contemplated in the Bill is extremely modest. It does away with the compulsory closing time of two and a half hours and, in some places, extends evening opening hours by 30 minutes. This is far less than the 1977 extension in Scotland, which allowed pubs to he open on a Sunday when previously they were not, extended evening opening hours by one hour and permitted afternoon opening hours. It was significant that the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). who has personal experience of the working of the law in Scotland, supported the Government's proposals in this regard and said that the reform in Scotland was both desirable and long overdue.
The evidence from Scotland is plain. It shows that, among men, the relaxation in the licensing hours did not lead to a statistically significant increase in the consumption of alcohol. That evidence is spelt out in detail in this report, which I commend to Opposition Members for detailed study.

Mr. Anderson: Does the Minister accept that there is a major difference in the statistics for employed men and those for unemployed men, and that the rate of consumption among employed men increased substantially, whereas that among unemployed men, for obvious reasons decreased?

Mr. Hogg: I do not accept that point in the way that it has been put by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr.

Anderson). It is true that consumption by unemployed men fell. However, I do not accept the second part of the hon. Gentleman's proposition.

Mrs. Taylor: rose——

Mr. Hogg: No, not at the moment. I propose to proceed, if only to inform the Opposition Front Bench who are clearly ignorant of the evidence.

Mrs. Taylor: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hogg: No. We will begin——

Mrs. Taylor: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hogg: It is remarkable how unwilling the Opposition Front Bench are to listen to a little fact, but unfortunately they must listen.
We will begin at page 43 of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys report, which states:
Alcohol consumption among men as a whole was virtually the same in 1984 as it had been in 1976".
The report goes on to detail that proposition. For example, page 7 of the report says that table 3.1, the relevant one,
shows that for men as a whole consumption rose very slightly from 14·3 units a week in 1976 to 14·5 units in 1984. Neither this increase nor any change in a particular age group is statistically significant.
The report also contains an examination of the detailed figures. For example, on page 12 we learn about the average consumption among drinkers in 1976 and the average consumption in 1984. In 1976 average consumption was 18·7 units; in 1984 it was 19·3 units. The point that hon. Members must grasp—a point that I have already made—is that the relaxation in Scotland was much more dramatic than the relaxation that we are contemplating in the Bill. There is no evidence whatever——

Mrs. Taylor: rose——

Mr. Hogg: I shall give way in a moment. There is no evidence to show——

Mrs. Taylor: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. One at a time, please.

Mr. Hogg: I shall give way to the hon. Lady when I have finished this point.
There is no evidence whatever that there has been a significant increase in consumption due to a change in licensing laws, but there is evidence that there has been a fall in the rate of consumption.

Mrs. Taylor: I should like to ask the Minister a simple question regarding the Scottish evidence that I believe will clarify the position. Is it not a fact that, for every single group, except unemployed males, consumption in Scotland has increased?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Lady is wrong. There was a substantial increase in the case of women. That consumption has already been dealt with in previous speeches. The major and fundamental conclusion is that to which I have already referred the House at some length. It is a conclusion that is supported by consideration of the effects of the licensing law change on health and public order offences.

Dr. Moonie: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hogg: No. I am going to continue for the moment.
We have had the advantage of reading an article written by Messrs Duffy and Plant in the British Medical Journal, published on 4 January 1986. That article contained a comprehensive review on the effect of alcohol on medical conditions. They examined, for example, mortality from liver cirrhosis, mortality due to alcohol dependency, total alcohol-related mortality and hospital admissions through alcohol dependence. They examined all those issues in considerable detail, and the conclusion to which they came was:
In relation to health, the new Scottish licensing arrangements may be viewed neither as a cause of harm nor as a source of benefit. They have, in effect, been neutral.
That conclusion is justified under each heading to which I have referred.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Hogg: I shall give way when I have made my next point.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Hogg: No. I shall give way when I have made my next point.

Several Hon. Members: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister has said that he will give way in due course.

Mr. Hogg: I come now to the next point. I am not surprised that the Opposition do not like it, because I am giving the facts. They are never keen to listen to the facts. We are now coming to some more.
The point that I have been making is that the changes in Scotland have had no deleterious effect. We can establish that by looking at convictions for drunken driving, which is a persuasive guide. For the decade 1975–1985, in England and Wales convictions for drunken driving rose by 64·1 per cent. In Scotland over the same period, convictions rose by 4·99 per cent. Because in all three countries 1977 was a low year for convictions, I thought it proper to do another calculation—contrasting 1977, when the measures were introduced, and 1985. Between 1977 and 1985, in England and Wales drunken driving offences went up by 102 per cent. In Scotland, over the same period, they increased by 41 per cent.
There are several other relevant indicators, most notably the casualty rate in drunken driving road accidents among the most vulnerable groups — pedestrians, children and cyclists. This answers the point made by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie). Contrasting 1977 with 1985, between 3 pm and 6 pm and 10 pm and 3 am, there was a fall in the number of pedestrians involved in drink-driving accidents. A similar fall can be seen in child casualties in the period from 3 pm to 7 pm. In 1985, fewer child casualties were involved in drink-driving accidents than in 1977. If one applies the same test, the same conclusion is true of pedal cyclists involved in drink-driving accidents. The only conclusion to which one can properly come is that relaxation in the licensing laws has not had an adverse effect on road safety.

Mr. Allen: Will the Minister consider the point that I made earlier: that the evidence is not incontrovertible? There are different interpretations. Therefore, on that matter, along with drunken driving and abuse of children due to alchohol, is it not the ideal opportunity to refer the

Bill to a Special Standing Committee for eight or 10 weeks' consideration so that evidence can be drawn from all facets of the community and proper consideration given to the Bill?

Mr. Hogg: That is the sort of loose thinking which, over the years, I have come to associate with the Labour party. In the first place, there is nothing equivocal about the evidence. It is wholly plain. It may not be easy for Opposition Members to understand, but that it is plain is beyond dispute. Secondly, we published our proposals in full in August 1987. If hon. Members have not had time to study or consider them or to come to a sensible view, that is hardly our fault. It is the fault of the Opposition Members. The Bill is inappropriate for a Special Standing Committee.
I should now like to make a little progress——

Mr. Favell: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hogg: I shall give way to my hon. Friend later.
Several of my hon. Friends, notably my hon. Friends the Members for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) and for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) asked us to make a substantial change in the licensing laws operating on a Sunday. My hon. Friends the Members for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) and for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) put it more modestly and suggested that we should make a small change. The Government's position is plain. It was explained candidly by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I shall be equally candid—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear."] It is nice to make such a well-received remark. I have no objection in principle to the proposals of my hon. Friends, but we want to get this Bill through—[Laughter.] We are pragmatists. Opposition Members may have a death wish—many of their policies display a death wish—but we do not. We do not wish to disturb the existing law on Sunday licensing because we wish to ensure the maximum possible support for the Bill.
The right hon.Member for Birmingham, Spark brook (Mr. Hattersley) mentioned amendments.

Sir Bernard Braine: rose—

Mr. Colvin: rose—

Mr. Hogg: Hon. Members can table amendments in Committee. It would be wrong for us to try to stop that, but I can tell the House that we shall oppose amendments in Committee, and, what is more, we shall try to persuade all our hon. Friends to do likewise.

Sir Bernard Braine: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for kindly giving way. Since he intends to get the Bill through, since the Bill is about England and Wales and not about Scotland, since he is concerned about the evidence and the facts and since the Government have for two years sat on a report about under-age drinking in England and Wales, can he explain the Government's intentions in Committee, or later, to end the scandal of under-age drinking?

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend has raised one of the most serious issues of this debate, both in his intervention and during his extremely passionate speech. He raised with my right hon. Friend the report of the working party and the committee dealing with young people and alcohol, which, as my right hon. Friend knows, will be published on 24 November, or thereabouts. On its publication, we propose to give those considerations extremely careful


thought, as will the ministerial group, and we have to decide how to meet any recommendations in that report. If we decide that the recommendations merit a substantial change to statute law, clearly this Bill is the proper and convenient vehicle.

Mrs. Taylor: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hogg: Not at the moment. I have given way to the hon. Lady often enough, and I propose to continue.

Mr. Colvin: rose——

Mr. Hogg: We have to consider the extent to which we need new laws and the extent to which existing laws need to be properly enforced. I have been reminded by my hon. Friends the Members for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) and for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin)—to whom I will give way—that in essence it is for licensees properly to enforce their responsibility and trust, and we intend to raise that matter with the police.

Mr. Colvin: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend on the extent to which we need new laws. It was set out in the Conservative party manifesto for the general election. I am pleased that the Government are honouring the commitment to reform the licensing laws. Why is there not the same determination to reform the law applying to Sunday trading, which was also a manifesto commitment?

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have listened to the points that he has made.
The right hon.Member for Sparkbrook and the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) called for random breath tests. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said that if we introduced random breath tests, he might support the Bill. I hope that on further reflection he will support the Bill. He should study in some detail the provisions of section 159 of the Road Traffic Act 1972. Under that section, the police have a right to stop vehicles at random with intent to determine whether a breath test should be administered. That is the law. Chief constables believe it to be sufficient, and the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook would have done better to have explained that to the House than to call for something which, in substance, already exists.

Mrs. Taylor: rose——

Mr. Hogg: No, I must press on.

Mr. Bermingham: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hogg: No. I have already told the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) that I will not give way.

Mr. John Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for St. Helens, North has been in the Chamber for only the past 10 minutes and has not attempted to intervene.

Mr. Hogg: I meant the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
Several of my hon. Friends suggested that we should extend drinking-up time on Friday and Saturday. There is a variety of opinion on this. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham said in terms that we should extend closing time on Friday and Saturday. In a well-argued speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) said that we should extend drinking-up time. A similar view was expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Derby,

North and for Romsey and Waterside. There are arguments in favour of that, but we regard the measures as a package, and we have decided that, if we agreed to such a change, the package would become unbalanced. The present drinking-up time of 10 minutes is frequently extended. If we allowed a further extension, it would become extremely late for local residents. I do not commend that suggestion to the House.

Mr. Favell: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hogg: No; I intend to proceed.

Mrs. Taylor: rose——

Mr. Hogg: No; I intend to proceed. I cannot be criticised for not giving way frequently. I now wish to get on. Several hon. Members have made good points which merit a considered reply.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East, who gave the Bill considerable support in the light of his experience in Scotland—for which the Government are extremely grateful—puggested that we should mount a survey to monitor the effect of the change in England and Wales. I wholly agree with him. The Home Office has commissioned the social services division of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys to undertake an up-todate survey of drinking habits in England and Wales so that we have data against which changes can be measured. Field work on the survey was completed in the last couple of weeks. In due course we will commission a further survey so that we can try to determine the extent of the change. I rather fancy that that will be welcomed by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East and by many other hon. Members.

Mr. Allen: rose——

Mr. Hogg: I will not give way at the moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and the hon. Members for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) referred to the position of tenants and managers. The statutory position is quite plain. The law does not oblige a licensee to remain open during all licensed hours, but it is undoubtedly true that the terms of a tenancy or management agreement can require a tenant or manager to keep open for the permitted hours. I am glad to say that there have been negotiations between the brewing industry and those who represent tenants and managers.
In the case of brewery-owned tenancy houses, the brewery companies have agreed to withdraw the clause in many tenancy agreements that requires pubs to open all the permitted hours and to replace it with an arrangement whereby the brewers and the tenants will discusss the hours requirements for public houses. There will be arbitration proceedings if there are disputes. Brewery companies will also discuss with their managers the hours arrangements for brewery-owned managed pubs, although the owning brewer will have ultimate responsibility for determining opening hours. That is the proper way to go forward. The House should be extremely slow to try to alter by statutory intervention the freely negotiated terms of a freely entered into contract. If it can be achieved by negotiation, that is the proper way forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) asked the Home Secretary whether we could reconsider costs. I put forward this consideration: the Bill provides for justices to award costs if they think it just and


reasonable. The Bill also provides a greatly extended ability to local residents and the police to apply to revoke a licence or to impose a restriction order. The ability to apply for a revocation order is far in excess of anything previously granted and can be made at any licensing session, other than the one at which the application is made. There is always a risk, however small, that the right to make such an application will be abused. Therefore, I suggest that it is right to give the justices a residual power to impose costs where the facts justify it.
The right hon.Member for Sparkbrook and the hon. Member for Dewsbury raised the status of the ministerial group and asked why the Government have decided to proceed with the Bill without awaiting a full report from that group. We did not introduce the Bill lightly. We considered the facts carefully, and we are confident that the Bill will not lead to an increase in alcohol misuse. The clear evidence of that is justification for the orderly introduction of the Bill. The ministerial group will try to identify those areas where we can best deal with the misuse of alcohol by the vulnerable and risk groups. That is clearly proper. Mr. Speaker, I fancy that shortly you will put the question.

Mr. Stuart Randall: I certainly hope so.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Member said he hopes so.

Mr. Stuart Holland: rose——

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is now presuming. I must conclude. To those hon. Members to whom I have not responded in detail, I apologise. No discourtesy was intended.
I commend the Bill. I reject the argument that it will aggravate the problems associated with the misuse of alcohol. It is a balanced package, and I commend it to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes, 87.

Division No. 41]
[10 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Boswell, Tim


Alexander, Richard
Bottomley, Peter


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)


Allason, Rupert
Bowis, John


Amos, Alan
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Arbuthnot, James
Brazier, Julian


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bright, Graham


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Ashby, David
Brooke, Hon Peter


Ashdown, Paddy
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Atkinson, David
Browne, John (Winchester)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Baldry, Tony
Buck, Sir Antony


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Budgen, Nicholas


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Burns, Simon


Batiste, Spencer
Burt, Alistair


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Butler, Chris


Bellingham, Henry
Caborn, Richard


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Benyon, W.
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Carrington, Matthew


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Carttiss, Michael


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Cartwright, John





Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Heddle, John


Chapman, Sydney
Henderson, Douglas


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Clelland, David
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Colvin, Michael
Holt, Richard


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Cope, John
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Couchman, James
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cran, James
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Crowther, Stan
Hoyle, Doug


Cummings, J.
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Curry, David
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Dalyell, Tarn
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Day, Stephen
Irvine, Michael


Devlin, Tim
Irving, Charles


Dickens, Geoffrey
Janman, Timothy


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jessel, Toby


Dover, Den
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dunn, Bob
Key, Robert


Durant, Tony
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Dykes, Hugh
Kirkhope, Timothy


Emery, Sir Peter
Knapman, Roger


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Evennett, David
Knowles, Michael


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Knox, David


Fallon, Michael
Lang, Ian


Fatchett, Derek
Latham, Michael


Favell, Tony
Lawrence, Ivan


Fearn, Ronald
Leadbitter, Ted


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Leighton, Ron


Flannery, Martin
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lightbown, David


Forman, Nigel
Lilley, Peter


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Forth, Eric
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Foulkes, George
Lord, Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
McCartney, Ian


Fox, Sir Marcus
McCrindle, Robert


Freeman, Roger
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


French, Douglas
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Fry, Peter
Maclean, David


Gale, Roger
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gardiner, George
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
McWilliam, John


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Madel, David


Gill, Christopher
Malins, Humfrey


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mans, Keith


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Maples, John


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marek, Dr John


Gow, Ian
Marland, Paul


Gower, Sir Raymond
Marlow, Tony


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Greenway, John (Rydale)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gregory, Conal
Maxton, John


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Grist, Ian
Mellor, David


Grocott, Bruce
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Grylls, Michael
Miller, Hal


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mills, Iain


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Miscampbell, Norman


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hanley, Jeremy
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Monro, Sir Hector


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Harris, David
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Haselhurst, Alan
Moss, Malcolm


Hawkins, Christopher
Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie


Hayes, Jerry
Mudd, David


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Neale, Gerrard


Hayward, Robert
Neubert, Michael


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Nicholls, Patrick






Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


O'Brien, William
Sims, Roger


O'Neill, Martin
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Onslow, Cranley
Snape, Peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Page, Richard
Speed, Keith


Paice, James
Speller, Tony


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Patchett, Terry
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Patnick, Irvine
Steinberg, Gerald


Pendry, Tom
Stevens, Lewis


Pike, Peter
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Portillo, Michael
Summerson, Hugo


Powell, William (Corby)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Price, Sir David
Thomas, Dafydd Elis


Radice, Giles
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Raffan, Keith
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Redwood, John
Thorne, Neil


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Thurnham, Peter


Renton, Tim
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Rhodes James, Robert
Trippier, David


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Trotter, Neville


Riddick, Graham
Twinn, Dr Ian


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Robertson, George
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wall, Pat


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Waller, Gary


Rowe, Andrew
Walters, Dennis


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Ward, John


Ryder, Richard
Whitney, Ray


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wiggin, Jerry


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Wilson, Brian


Shaw, David (Dover)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)



Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sheerman, Barry
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Mr. Stephen Dorrell.


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Anderson, Donald
Golding, Mrs Llin


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Hardy, Peter


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Hinchliffe, David


Battle, John
Holland, Stuart


Beggs, Roy
Hood, James


Beith, A. J.
Howells, Geraint


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Illsley, Eric


Bermingham, Gerald
Ingram, Adam


Boyes, Roland
Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Kilfedder, James


Buckley, George
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Lamond, James


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)


Clay, Bob
Livingstone, Ken


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cohen, Harry
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Corbett, Robin
Macdonald, Calum


Corbyn, Jeremy
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Cousins, Jim
Meacher, Michael


Cryer, Bob
Michael, Alun


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Dobson, Frank
Mullin, Chris


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Murphy, Paul


Eastham, Ken
Paisley, Rev Ian


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Prescott, John


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Flynn, Paul
Quin, Ms Joyce


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Randall, Stuart


Foster, Derek
Richardson, Ms Jo


Fraser, John
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
Rooker, Jeff





Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Walley, Ms Joan


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wareing, Robert N.


Short, Clare
Wigley, Dafydd


Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Rt Hon A. J.


Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Winnick, David


Soley, Clive
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Spearing, Nigel



Straw, Jack
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Dr. Lewis Moonie and


Vaz, Keith
Mr, Graham Allen.


Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill Read a Second time.

Motion made—[Mr. Allen]—and Question put, That the Bill be commited to a Special Standing Committee:—

The House divided: Ayes 74, Noes 247.

Division No. 42]
[10.45 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Kilfedder, James


Anderson, Donald
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
McCartney, Ian


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Macdonald, Calum


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Battle, John
McWilliam, John


Beggs, Roy
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Beith, A. J.
Meacher, Michael


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Bermingham, Gerald
Morley, Elliott


Boyes, Roland
Mullin, Chris


Buckley, George
O'Brien, William


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Paisley, Rev Ian


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Patchett, Terry


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Pike, Peter


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Prescott, John


Cohen, Harry
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Corbett, Robin
Quin, Ms Joyce


Corbyn, Jeremy
Richardson, Ms Jo


Cousins, Jim
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Cryer, Bob
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Cummings, J.
Short, Clare


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Skinner, Dennis


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Soley, Clive


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Spearing, Nigel


Foster, Derek
Steinberg, Gerald


Golding, Mrs Llin
Straw, Jack


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Grocott, Bruce
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hardy, Peter
Vaz, Keith


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Henderson, Douglas
Walley, Ms Joan


Hinchliffe, David
Wareing, Robert N.


Hood, James
Wigley, Dafydd


Howells, Geraint
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)



Illsley, Eric
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ingram, Adam
Dr. Lewis Moonie, and


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Mr. Graham Allen.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Alexander, Richard
Bellingham, Henry


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Allason, Rupert
Bevan, David Gilroy


Amos, Alan
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Arbuthnot, James
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Boswell, Tim


Ashby, David
Bottomley, Peter


Ashdown, Paddy
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)


Ashton, Joe
Bowis, John


Atkinson, David
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Brazier, Julian


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bright, Graham


Baldry, Tony
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Brooke, Hon Peter


Batiste, Spencer
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)






Browne, John (Winchester)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Gill, Christopher


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Buck, Sir Antony
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Budgen, Nicholas
Gow, Ian


Burns, Simon
Gower, Sir Raymond


Burt, Alistair
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Butler, Chris
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Greenway, John (Rydale)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Gregory, Conal


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Carrington, Matthew
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Carttiss, Michael
Grist, Ian


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Grylls, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Clelland, David
Hanley, Jeremy


Colvin, Michael
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Harris, David


Cope, John
Haselhurst, Alan


Couchman, James
Hawkins, Christopher


Cran, James
Hayes, Jerry


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Curry, David
Hayward, Robert


Dalyell, Tam
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Heddle, John


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Day, Stephen
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Devlin, Tim
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Dickens, Geoffrey
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Holt, Richard


Dover, Den
Hordern, Sir Peter


Dunn, Bob
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Durant, Tony
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Dykes, Hugh
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Evennett, David
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Fallon, Michael
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Favell, Tony
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Fearn, Ronald
Irvine, Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Irving, Charles


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Janman, Timothy


Fookes, Miss Janet
Jessel, Toby


Forman, Nigel
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Forth, Eric
Key, Robert


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Kirkhope, Timothy


Freeman, Roger
Knapman, Roger


French, Douglas
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Fry, Peter
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Gale, Roger
Knowles, Michael


Gardiner, George
Knox, David


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Lang, Ian





Latham, Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Lawrence, Ivan
Redwood, John


Lead bitter, Ted
Renton, Tim


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Rhodes James, Robert


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Lightbown, David
Riddick, Graham


Lilley, Peter
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lord, Michael
Rowe, Andrew


McCrindle, Robert
Ryder, Richard


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Maclean, David
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


McLoughlin, Patrick
Shaw, David (Dover)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Madel, David
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Malins, Humfrey
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Mans, Keith
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Maples, John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Marland, Paul
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Marlow, Tony
Sims, Roger


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Speed, Keith


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

 Mellor, David
Stevens, Lewis


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Miller, Hal
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Mills, lain
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Miscampbell, Norman
Summerson, Hugo


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Monro, Sir Hector
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thorne, Neil


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Thurnham, Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Trippier, David


Neale, Gerrard
Trotter, Neville


Neubert, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholls, Patrick
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Onslow, Cranley
Waller, Gary


Paice, James
Ward, John


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Patnick, Irvine
Wiggin, Jerry


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Porter, David (Waveney)



Portillo, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Powell, William (Corby)
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and


Price, Sir David
Mr. Stephen Dorrell.


Raffan, Keith

Question accordingly negatived

Bill committed to a standing Committee pursuant to standing Order No. 61 (Committee of Bills).

Orders of the Day — Food Aid

Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is a Standing Order of the House that the Scrutiny Committee—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members leave the Chamber quietly if they are not taking part in the debate?

Mr. Spearing: It is a Standing Order of the House that the Scrutiny Committee, of which I have the honour to be Chairman, reports to the House on matters relating to EEC legislation and makes recommendations for debate. On this topic we have made a report, which will be printed. It is the fourth report, HC 43 IV. The memorandum states:
The Committee looks to the Government for additional information on these two issues in due course and any other clarification which seems necessary, and may then wish to report further.
Last Wednesday, after the Committee had met, a further regulation was received from Brussels. It is the numbered regulation in the motion, No. 9138/87, on which, unfortunately, the Committee did not have an opportunity to report. Article 1 of that document refers to designated organisations. The Minister tabled a supplementary memorandum, which was requested by the Committee. It stated that he wished to point out to the House how the proposal differed from that on which earlier explanatory memoranda were based. He then listed the main points. However, I understand that the Commission has deposited yet another document, namely, No. 9227/87, which was a report on the previous working of the scheme, not a regulation for its adoption, which relates to part of the debate tonight. A paragraph on page 10 states:
Organisations recognised by the Member State concerned or (if no recognition had been granted in that Member State to such organisations) the Commission would implement the programme in the relevant country. These organisations need not necessarily be charities.
I raise this point of order because, unless the information is available to the House in the form of a report—which through an oversight is not in the second supplementary memorandum—the House will not be aware that it is possible, under the regulation, for a wider set of bodies, possibly statutory bodies, to be involved as designated organisations. That may have a bearing on the debate. Is it possible for the Minister to confirm that point? Unfortunately, his second explanatory memorandum is dated 11 November. He was a little ahead of time.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am happy to agree with what the hon. Gentleman said. It will be understood by the House that I do not have control over the timing of documents as they emerge from Brussels. The hon. Gentleman rightly suggested that we should discuss the matter and that it is important that such discussions should take place before decisions are made by the Community. Therefore, I considered it right to put the

documents before the House as soon as we received them. When we finally received the report in an acceptable form—in other words, in English—I put it before the House as soon as I could. In fact, I agreed it while out of London so that it should be before the House as quickly as it could be presented. The difficulty is that we have only what is before us. I have yet to receive confirmation from the Commission that it will lay regulations that will apply to any organisation, or whether there will be restrictions on those organisations. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is perfectly right to draw attention to this and I would have hoped to do so in my own speech. It is better to have the debate before the decisions are made than to wait until one has all the answers, by which time the decisions will have been made.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the debate should proceed.

Mr. Gummer: I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9138/87 on general rules for the supply of food from intervention stocks for distribution to the most deprived persons in the Community.
We are debating both the past of this scheme and the proposals for the future in so far as we can decipher them from the various documents. I should like to confine myself to a few short comments to start with and, if the House will allow me, to give myself a little time at the end to answer the points that will have been raised. I am sure that that would be more helpful to hon. Members.
The House will remember that the United Kingdom Government were not enthusiastic about the terms of the original proposals. We said that it would be extremely difficult to prove additionality in the decisions that were made and wondered how much effect that would have on the surpluses of food in store. We were concerned about the fact that we were to ask charities to carry out that work without any warning and in conditions for which they were totally unable to prepare.
We were especially concerned that the decisions were made irrespective of the individual and different needs of each country. It was in no grouching or miserable manner that we put forward those points, but we were unsuccessful in getting our colleagues in the European Community to accept them. On the other hand, having lost the day on the terms in which the proposals were put forward, we set out to try to make the exercise as successful as it could be within the terms under which we were able to operate. ln other words, we returned immediately, called together the charities that seemed to be the most obviously affected, and discussed the matter with them on the day after the decisions had been made. I returned from Brussels immediately.
As a result, the Commission's report shows that the United Kingdom spent about 45 per cent. of the amount of money that was spent in the Community as a whole. Indeed, we spent more of the available money than France, Germany and Spain put together. After us, those countries were the three largest spenders. We did extremely well in trying to use the available resources, given the problems about which we had already warned the Community.
I wish to make three comments, although I shall say more in answer to any questions. First, I am second to none in my considerable admiration for the charities' work in circumstances that were intolerable for them. They had


to operate under wholly unsuitable conditions and immediately, without any advance warning, and they did so remarkably. It would be invidious to refer to any particular charity, although the Salvation Army especially was a tower of strength in areas that would not otherwise have been covered. It also helped other charities. Several other charities had a national distribution, such as the Women's Royal Voluntary Service and the Red Cross, and were extremely helpful and I should like to thank them.
Secondly, I am extremely doubtful whether the scheme had any real effect on the surpluses. I do not regard this as an effective system for reducing surpluses. To do that effectively one must prove at least some additionality and that the food that was given out from surplus stores did not replace food that would otherwise have been bought. There is considerable doubt about that. Certainly some food was not simply replacement food, but I do not think that it was of sufficient quantity to make this a sensible scheme for removing the surpluses.
Thirdly, we are a country that has every right to criticise and propose any future scheme, because we did everything in our power to make the last scheme work, although we did not like it, objected to its terms and tried to have them changed. We cannot be faulted on our efforts to make this work. Therefore, it is reasonable for us to say that we have considerable doubts about the scheme, as we understand it, proposed by the Commission. We remind the House that the scheme will run permanently. It is not merely for an emergency. It does not appear to have benefited from the many lessons that we could have taught the Commission. It does not appear to meet either the budgetary worries or the additionality concerns about which most people would be anxious. It is difficult to see any sign that the scheme overcomes the difficulties that our charities found and—I do not wish to put words into their mouths—they are hesitant about joining in any future scheme. The scheme does not seem to meet their major problem, which is that they do not see, as the Government do not see, that proper account has been taken of changes that would enable the scheme to make a proper contribution towards helping the most needy.
Obviously, there would be some help. It is difficult to envisage a scheme that would not do something, but it is difficult to see, even in the suggested changes, that any future scheme would make a contribution commensurate with its cost and the diversion of effort of anybody who carried it out. The scheme would have to be carried out by somebody—whoever we are allowed to suggest—who is likely already to be doing something useful. Therefore, if that somebody carries it out, he may well find himself having to carry out the scheme instead of what he might otherwise be doing.
For that reason, we are at present criticising the Commission for seeming not to have learnt the lessons that we could have presented to it. We are worried that the scheme does not solve the problems that have been shown, not only to the Government, but to the charities. Therefore, we enter these discussions with considerable doubts that the Commission can produce a scheme that will meet our needs. That seems to be a not unreasonable position to uphold, although, naturally, if something happened to make the scheme more effective we would consider it carefully, as we did the original scheme. Our bona fides are clear from our previous efforts.
If the House gives me permission, I shall be happy to answer any questions that are raised, but I think it would be best for the House first to discuss the proposals.

Dr. David Clark: I beg to move, at the end of the Question to add
and noting that the earlier free food scheme of 1987 led to considerable difficulties for charities responsible for food distribution and caused inconvenience and hardship to many of the intended beneficiaries, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to ensure that the new scheme takes note of this earlier experience and to devise means of guaranteeing that the distributive process does not lead to a financial loss to the charities involved and that the recipients are treated equitably.".
The official Opposition welcome the opportunity to debate the distribution of so-called free food from EEC intervention stores and we trust that the Minister will reflect our views when the matter is discussed at the Council of Agriculture Ministers on 16 and 17 November.
Perhaps we should first dispel once and for all the myth of free food. That term is a misnomer because the food has already been paid for four times over by its recipients. We should do well to remind ourselves that, first, the recipients have paid a high price in the shops because of the artificially high EC support systems; secondly, they pay as taxpayers for the cost of the food going into intervention; thirdly, they pay for the storage of the food in intervention; and, fourthly, they contribute towards the cost of the £70 million for the operation of the concessionary food schemes. Therefore, I hope that the House will accept that the term free food is merely shorthand for the scheme and that the food is far from free.
As the House knows, the Labour party views the common agricultural policy of the European Community with great dismay. It seems to set prices so high that food cannot be sold in the open market, which is crazy. It results in the scenarios that we face today, and regularly. It strikes us as ludicrous that in order to reduce food surpluses we have to feed them to animals, contemplate destroying them, or sell them to the Russians at knockdown prices. I am sure that the whole House agrees that that is not a sensible policy.
The Minister rightly pointed out that the item that the Government and this country gave most effectively in the last concessionary scheme was butter, but we still have 200,000 tonnes of butter in intervention stores in this country and more than 1·25 million tonnes in the Community at large, so the fact that some of that surplus food might find its way into the mouths of 5 million of our more deprived fellow citizens is laudable and sensible.
It is worth reflecting on what a condemnation of the Government it is that we have 5 million deprived people. The Government have a deplorable record of assisting the less well-off. I recall the miserly 40p pension rise last year for single pensioners and the fact that 700,000 of our poorest people will be still worse off under the new social security system that the Government are introducing next April.
The free food scheme is a palliative measure in the fight against poverty, and, in the short term, we support it. In the long term, surely the objective must be for all the people of the Community to have incomes that are sufficient for their food requirements.
As the Minister said, we are discussing what is essentially a mark II version of the concessionary scheme.


We must learn the lessons of the previous one. I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the positive suggestions that I am sure will come from both sides of the House. Perhaps we should remind ourselves that the new scheme is crucially different in several respects from the previous one. The Minister was right to draw our attention to one of the main differences—that of duration. The previous scheme existed for a mere 10 weeks; This one is envisaged as being permanent, so the responsibility to get it right is paramount, and we should not duck it.
Secondly, this is a narrower scheme, restricted entirely to stocks from the intervention fund, which was not the case last time. What lessons can be gleaned from the previous experience? The efforts of the various charities that were involved last time were commendable. As the Minister said, they did everything asked of them in intolerable circumstances, and the successes of the scheme were entirely to their credit. I regret that many of the dedicated workers of the various charities ran into problems which were the Government's fault and not their own. They were at the sharp end—angry pensioners had queued in the cold for hours, only to be told sometimes that supplies had run out.
Why did the Government work solely through the charities? My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has already pointed out that the EEC directive does not, and did not, require them to do so. "Designated organisations" were the relevant term.

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead the House. As we understand it, the future scheme does not use only charities, but the previous scheme required us to work through them. There was no way that the Government could have avoided doing so.

Dr. Clark: I thank the Minister for his remarks. It now appears that although the Government's explanatory memorandum on the new scheme speaks only of charities, the definition is not to be so narrow. EC document 9277 talks about recognised organisations and mentions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South said, that those organisations need not necessarily be charities. We could discuss with the local authorities whether they could help. Local authorities have much of the expertise to identify the recipients, which was one of the points of consternation last time, and they have the means to assist in the distribution. The House will recollect that one of the main criticisms of the previous scheme was that in some parts of the country distribution worked very effectively, while in other parts it hardly worked at all.
If the Minister asks the local authorities to assist and to expend money on the scheme, will he give the House an assurance that such expenditure will be free from rate-capping calculations? If we follow the route that I have suggested, anything other than exemption would be crazy.
Do the Government intend to explore the possibility of using the expertise and facilities of the food retailers? They have an efficient system of distribution for all types of food to all corners of the kingdom. That is one thing that Britain does in an exemplary fashion. That might save many of the unnecessary and fruitless journeys made by pensioners on the previous occasion. It would also ensure a uniform distribution system, which I am sure that the Minister and the House want to see in the new scheme.
In our positive amendment we emphasise that the Government should not expect the various charities to

bear the cost of administering the scheme, as they were forced to do previously. Age Concern incurred costs of almost £200,000 for the distribution of food in the previous system. Will the Minister ensure in any new scheme that such expenditure will be reimbursed? It is permissible for such payments to be made from national sources if the EC will not foot the bill.
Will the Secretary of State have discussions with the Secretary of State for Social Services? The negative attitude—I can use no other words— of the DHSS last year caused annoyance to many people. The House will recall that on 27 January the DHSS sent an insensitive circular to all its offices. In essence, it urged non-co-operation and reminded DHSS staff that responsibility for distribution and publicity and for identifying recipients rested with the charities alone. I hope that in future there will be a more positive attitude.
Perhaps the Minister could tell us what discussions he has had with the charities that will be or could be involved, and whether any charities that co-operated last time will not co-operate in future. Perhaps he will also tell us whether any new charities that did not co-operate last time will consider co-operating this time. Will the Minister ensure that the necessary distribution network is set in place before there is any publicity? Last time there was so much publicity prior to the establishment of the network that many people were disappointed. I hope that we can get the distribution network right before the Ministry pushes ahead with its publicity.
The Labour party welcomes the concept of redistributing surplus food to the needier members of the community. That is much more sensible than selling it to the Russians. We hope that the Government will work positively to devise such a system. I thought that the Minister's speech was a little negative, but I hope that in the debate he will reflect on some of the points made to him by hon. Members.
The earlier scheme had considerable success due to the initiative of the charities involved and the dedication of their workers. The charities did the hard work and footed much of the bill, while the Government took the credit. The Minister looks a little surprised, but we got rather tired of seeing the Minister and his colleagues in funny hats doling out butter and sides of beef.
I do not want to dwell on the past. What Britain needs is a sensible agriculture and food policy, but until we have such a policy we call on the Government to introduce a system of concessionary food for our neediest citizens and to ensure a fair and equitable distribution. The Government must also guarantee that no charity loses financially in assisting them in providing that concessionary food.

Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): I welcomed the tone of the Minister's speech because it has become obvious to most Conservative Members, but apparently not to Labour Members, that the original scheme was not only ill-conceived, but ill-devised and it operated in a most ineffective manner.
Such failure was inevitable because the scheme, by its very conception, undermined the whole essence of the common agricultural policy. I may agree with many Opposition Members that the very nature of the common agricultural policy is due for fundamental reappraisal—I put it no more strongly than that. However, as long as we


have such a policy, based as it is on the principle of minimum intervention prices, any system that sets out to offer something at a different price or seeks to give something away, will start to undermine that policy.
Some people may want the common agricultural policy undermined, but the Minister, our Government and the Commission of the EC would be well advised to think carefully before setting out to undermine the principles of a policy to which they still claim to be committed. That is the first problem.
The next problem is the equally obvious one of the black market possibilities of such a scheme. I believe that it is obvious that when one gives away a desired product that is already on the market and has an established price, that practice is open to the possibility of black market operations. In other words the recipients of the product can decide whether to use it themselves or to offer it in some subsidiary or illegal manner on the market. Again, that further undermines the original market that we are trying to operate.
That problem leads to the next difficulty—sheer and rather unpleasant greed. I do not know about the experience of other hon. Members, but in my constituency the scheme attracted an unpleasant reaction when people got wind of something that could be got for nothing. There was a rather undignified response and in some cases people scrambled to get their hands on what was thought to be desirable. Unpleasant accusations were made by one set of people against another: "Why did they get some and I did not? Why is that charity not giving me something? Why is the person up the road getting it? What is the queue all about?" Any scheme that brings the greedy aspects of human nature to the surface is unfortunate to say the least. There must be much better ways of alleviating human need rather than a selective and ill-organised system that brings out the worst in people instead of the best.
Faced with such problems I was heartened to hear the Minister say, with honesty, that not only did the Government have reservations about the original scheme, but the experience of the previous scheme has left the Government suspicious about what is now to be attempted. Although the charities tried the first time round, they may not be the vehicles with which to attempt a second effort.
In my constituency I have been contacted by at least one charity previously involved that has made it clear that it has no desire to be involved in any subsequent exercise whether it is given money, subsidies, subventions or anything else such as the Opposition have suggested. I do not think that the charities want to touch this new scheme with a barge pole. They were disillusioned by their experience the first time round. They disliked the reaction that they received from the public. They disliked the ill-organised imposition of the scheme on them. I am sure that they would not be happy, and most of them would not be prepared, to contemplate taking part in a subsequent scheme.
Therefore, my right hon. Friend the Minister has my complete support in his scepticism and his grave doubts about whether we should undertake such a scheme again. He will continue to have that support. I hope that the Government will resist the attempts by the Commission to bring forward that ill-founded scheme, certainly on a

permanent basis, which undermines our agricultural policy and brings out the worst in people throughout the Community.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I differ in my approach from that of other hon. Members who have spoken. Many people in my constituency and in Wales generally were proud when they were given extra food at the beginning of the new year. That was welcomed by many of the needy and the elderly. However, I should like to express a cautious welcome to the European Community document that we are considering. It is an excellent idea in theory to distribute surplus stocks from intervention stores to those in need in our society. To some extent it eases the embarrassment over the wastage of keeping produce in intervention in the first place.
I have always been against hoarding meat and other surpluses. Will the Minister say which commodities are in surplus? I have been told that there is little best beef in surplus in the Community. There is plenty of cow beef, but I do not believe that many of the elderly will be interested in that. Will any beef be given away this Christmas or at the beginning of the new year? The other commodity in surplus is butter. Will the Minister list the commodities and tell us what percentage of those in surplus will be given to the people?
My reservations about the scheme are based on our experiences during the earlier part of this year when there appeared to be a great deal of public and official confusion about the working of the scheme—dare I agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth)? It came about because the distribution was in the hands of charities that had neither adequate resources to cope with the demand nor sufficient warning beforehand to organise the operation properly. I understand that there was a great deal of resentment at the lack of consultation. Whether it was between the charitable organisations and the Department I am not sure, but I have been told that there was a great deal of unease.
The other main problem has been identified as the imprecise definition of those eligible to receive the food and exactly how much food each person was to receive. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that issue, too.
We must welcome the initiative and its development into a permanent system, not linked to a cold weather factor as it was earlier this year. But from now on it is important to ensure that the rules are made crystal clear and that the organisations in charge of distribution are well prepared for the work involved, so that the food reaches the maximum number of those who deserve it.
There must also be adequate funding. Does the Minister consider that £70 million per annum is enough, bearing in mind that expenditure on distribution last time was £110 million for three months? There is a great discrepancy in that. Are the charities involved likely to be given sufficient support this time round, to avoid the tremendous financial and organisational strains that they suffered last time? Age Concern incurred costs of £ 195,000 for its part in the operation, and it has asked for consultation well before the public announcement of any future scheme.
Is there a case for involving local authorities, which probably have better local knowledge and comprehensive lists of those in need? They may also have more resources


for distribution. Could there be co-operation between authorities and the charities? In Wales, the distribution could be carried out by county and district councils. Community councils are extremely strong in the Principality, and their members could do excellent work in helping to distribute food to the needy, the young and the elderly. When he announced the scheme, the EC Agriculture Commissioner hinted that the Government had asked him not to involve the local authorities. What was the reason for that? However, I understand that Mr. Andriessen said that local authorities might play a role in the future. I would welcome the Minister's comments on whether there is any truth in what the Commissioner said.
Another essential ingredient of a successful scheme must be the detailed description of the categories of those in need and eligible for free food. Last time varying interpretations in different areas led to confusion and resentment among the elderly and the poor.
We must accept this document with enthusiasm, but from now on the British end of the scheme must be organised as efficiently as seemed to be the case in other countries. The British public cannot put up with the confusion and disappointments that were such a feature of the original scheme.

Mr. Tim Boswell: I need not detain the House for long at this late hour. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Minister's healthy dose of scepticism in these matters. As we are about to enter international negotiations on a concept and on a set of documents that are most kindly described as opaque, it might be helpful if I offered some general considerations to the House.
Such a scheme could not make more than the tiniest dent in the huge mountains of surplus food that have accumulated under the common agricultural policy. My right hon. Friend the Minister has said many times that we need radical changes in the policy, but the scheme would make little difference to it. It must not be prayed in aid as an excuse for not taking action to tackle the surpluses at source. If one wishes to empty the bath, it is a good idea to turn off the tap before taking out the plug, however slightly, as this scheme would do. In conformity with that thought, the scheme should be limited to a modest sum—in Community terms—of 100 million ecu. As it is likely to make only a small impact when one allows for substitution and the rest, the scheme must be confined in cost.
As the documents suggest in outline, it is essential that the member states retain individual control over the designation of authorities for the distribution of food. We do not want to lose that power to a Commission diktat. In that connection—here I may part company from some of my hon. Friends—I favour the retention of the charities as the distribution agencies. In many cases, they are economical. Their overheads are low and their effectiveness high. I understand that the Salvation Army, which bore the brunt of distribution in the United' Kingdom, spent just over £100,000 on the job, which was cost-effective. Secondly, if the matter is remitted to charities, there is no question of any charge of political favouritism or jobbery. Also, it is an advantage if it is at arm's length.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Does my hon. Friend agree that if we gave the job to local

authorities we would have to ensure that they did not spend more money distributing the scheme than the scheme would bring into the country? We would have to watch some local authorities particularly carefully. Does he also agree that the suggestion from the Labour Front Bench that we should exclude GRE expenditure could allow councils to go haywire in adding on extra costs?

Mr. Boswell: Perhaps I should say that I think that some local authorities would do better than others. My right hon. Friend referred to the remarkable performance in a short time of the United Kingdom charities in mounting such an effort. If it is to be put on a long-term basis, we will need to consider how we monitor the scheme on a regular basis, not because we do not trust the charities, but because we need to see that there is proper accountability and that a pattern of control is established, particularly within the Community.
One or two points in the documents are disturbing. There is an assertion on page 4 of document No. 9277/87 that
it is not possible to give a sound estimate of the total number of beneficiaries".
Presumably that means that it would be possible to give only an unsound estimate of the total number of beneficiaries. At page 5 there is reference to very few cases of abuse mentioned in the material that was received from the member states and the charities. My comment on that is: "Well, they would, wouldn't they." If this is to be made permanent, we should accept the scheme, with no illusions as to its tremendous benefit. It may have some marginal benefit, but if it is to do even that without becoming an abuse, it must be properly defined, we must keep some controls within our own purview and not remit the whole job to Europe, and we must ensure that both domestically and in Europe there is better accounting than there has been.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I should declare an interest. I have a dual mandate. I am a member of the Common Market Assembly and I receive a third of the parliamentary salary which, after tax, is divided between the Sheffield and Bradford Labour movements. I have made that declaration publicly before.
Charities were not consulted and the Minister is disingenuous if he suggests that it was not open to the Government to recommend in the Council of Ministers that local authorities should be used. Of course, there was a political basis for the decision. An election was in the offing. The Government thought that it might be useful if they were seen to be distributing food and that it might also improve the tarnished image of the Community, which spends 67 per cent. of its expenditure on farming, a large chunk of which goes to building up the food stocks that cost about £2,000 million a year to store.
Since 1984 we have contributed £5·3 billion to the Community in net revenue. The free food distribution gave the false impression that we were getting something back for our money. In fact, we got very little, and in the new scheme we will get even less—£70,000 below the amount spent on the last occasion.
The British Government were rather parsimonious once the PR exercise had been completed. It should be emphasised that the charities, and even the Ministry, did not know what would be the organisational application of


the scheme. The Minister rushed off to television studios, but his officials did not have the details of how the scheme would operate to make foodstuffs available to the charities or any other organisations.
The charities are cynical about any new scheme that is to be introduced, because they lost thousands of pounds that they could ill afford to part with in the course of distribution. Age Concern has estimated that the scheme cost it over £195,000, and it was not the largest charity involved. It has made various representations about that loss. If the Government want the charities to be involved, they must be prepared to meet some of the costs arising from the previous scheme. That will have to be done before the charities will show any enthusiasm for the new scheme.
The Government were even churlish in the way in which they approached the old scheme. They refused to distribute the foodstuffs that were involved and available such as flour, sugar, vegetable oils, fruit and vegetables. That reflected mean-mindedness on their part.
The efficiency of the old scheme in reducing the huge mountains of foodstuffs was laughable. About 13,624 tonnes of butter were distributed in the United Kindom, which was a small fraction of the 243,036 tonnes which were in store here when the scheme started. The distribution of beef was an even greater disaster. Only 1,041 tonnes were given away, but there were 48,671 tonnes in store at the end of January. By the end of the scheme, the amount of beef in store had increased. In terms of effectiveness, the scheme was counter-productive. I hope that the new scheme will result in a genuine distribution of significant quantities of food.
I must tell the Minister that my faith in the Commission is extremely limited. I would not allow it to run a fish-and chip shop. I regard fish-and-chip shops as far too important to be subjected to that treatment. Indeed, the Commission is trying to impose a tax on vegetable oils to increase the cost of fish and chips. It is even now engaged in pursuing that absurd task.
I hope that the Minister will use his influence in the Council of Ministers, which in theory is the power organisation in the Common market, and press for a wider application of the scheme. Let him do so with a view to ensuring that the Commission produces a better scheme that will lead to the distribution of significant quantities of food.
When I was temporarily absent from this place, it enacted the Communities (Amendment) Act 1986. Hon. Members can see in document No. 9138/87 that there is now a qualified majority voting procedure. Even if the Government put forward sensible proposals, they can be out-voted. That is a consequence of the foolish legislation that the House enacted that gave more powers to the Common market, which continues to be a millstone round our neck.
The previous distribution of food humiliated many applicants. There were many who were told that they did not qualify, or that their friends did, because of the uncertainty of definition. Of course, those who did not have to go through that procedure thought that everything was all right. It would seem that there is common consent this evening that the scheme was a disaster and that there must be a radical improvement before a new scheme is even vaguely acceptable. I hope that the Minister will take these comments on board——

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman has made an outspoken criticism of the arrangements for the distribution of food aid to the poor. Bearing in mind his attacks on the Government and the Common Market—and he knows that I share some of the concern that he has felt for many years—would he tell us how he suggests the European Community should tackle the distribution of surplus food to the poor of the world and how much his proposals would cost?

Mr. Cryer: I would certainly include a much wider range of foods, because they are presumably still available. I would define much more widely and generously those entitled to receive free food and I would ensure that the local authorities were involved because, of all our organisations, they are the best equipped to pick out people in need—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Hon. Members shout "Nonsense," but the local authorities run social services departments. They deal constantly with people in need of housing — people in private accommodation that is not fit to live in and who are forced to seek council housing. Social services departments deal with those in genuine need.
I suspect that the reason why the Government did not call upon the local authorities or press the case for their use in the Council of Ministers is that the distribution of free food might reflect a certain amount of credit on the local authorities. The Government are obsessive in their hatred of local government, as has been demonstrated in virtually all their legislation. I would call upon the expertise and knowledge of local authorities and ask them to help to produce an adequate definition of the groups that should qualify.
Furthermore, local authorities would have the facilities available to enable them to achieve a distribution that was not arbitrary. In the previous scheme, for example, some centres in Sheffield ran out of butter, although there were 30 tonnes stored in the central depot.
I have much greater faith in local authorities than in charities to achieve efficient distribution. Although the charities tried their best, they found the whole exercise very burdensome, and the costs enormous. Consequently, the charities are cynical about future distributions. We probably need both local authorities and the charities, but we certainly need to invoke the local authorities' support in defining those eligible for the food.
That is a thumbnail view of what I would do, and when we have a Labour Government we shall make sure that the thing is done properly.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): I welcome the debate because it gives us an opportunity, at least in principle, to consider ways in which the elderly, less well-off and needy in our society can be helped. Many people are understandably concerned and bemused by a system that allows vast quantities of food to be stored at vast cost when many in our society go without.
I remind Conservative Members who criticise the scheme that it is a valuable aid to the pensioner living on a state pension who has to decide in the middle of a cold snap in winter how best to spend his or her money—on heating, on food or on clothing. Similarly, a single parent has to decide between the competing claims of herself and her children. One could go on to list many more examples of needy people in our society.
Personally, and on behalf of my party, I welcome the provision to allow intervention stocks to be made available to those who desperately need them. I also welcome the fact that such distribution need not be linked to the cold-weather provision, as it was last winter.
I ask the Government to note a few points, already made, in part, by Opposition members, based on the experience of the distributing organisations during the winter of 1986–87. It must be made clear to those who administer the system exactly who is to benefit. It was appalling that in some parts of the country people who turned up with their benefit books were turned away because some members of some distributing organisations interpreted entitlement differently from others. Many people who were already embarrassed at having to make a claim left empty handed, feeling humiliated and degraded.
We must ensure that the distributing organisations have the capacity to do the work properly. I do not criticise the volunteers who worked extremely hard last winter, but I am sure that some did not appreciate the enormity of the task that they had taken on. It is in the nature of people who work for charities, many of whom are volunteers, that they often do what is asked of them. They were asked to distribute the food. They volunteered, not realising in many instances what was really asked of them. We should not take for granted those who work for charitable organisations. What the scheme involves should be made clear to them at the outset.
The Government have shown, through the Minister's remarks, what can only be described as less than enthusiasm for the proposed scheme. I urge the Minister to reconsider, because a great deal can be achieved, provided that the scheme is worked out properly, that we know who is to benefit from it, and that the distributing organisations—I agree that a combination of charities and local authorities would be an excellent concept—are agreed. The Minister should make a positive contribution at the Council of Ministers. We are talking about a scheme which helps the needy. If it is a proper scheme, I am sure that it will benefit everyone in need.

Mr. Ron Davies: This has been an interesting debate. The tone was set by the Minister's opening comments. He did not give us a lot to go on, other than a heavy dose of scepticism. I understand the reasons for that, and it is interesting that his scepticism found ready echoes in the speeches of the hon. Members for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) and for Daventry (Mr. Boswell). Our scepticism is reflected in our amendment. I am surprised that the Government, in the shape of the Minister, have not been more conciliatory towards it.
I welcome the comments of the hon. Members for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) and for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones), both of whom supported the views of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). I welcome particularly the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer)." I assure him that it is in a sense of comradeship that I say his speech was moderate, well thought out and constructive. I look forward to continued contributions by him in that light. [Interruption.] I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has taken those comments to heart.
The Government's proposition represents a fairly important landmark in the development of the European Community. Last year, the arrangement for the distribution of what we call free food was a one-off, justified as a response to help those in need during a period of cold and inclement weather. This year it has been made clear that the scheme is to be permanent. That is a major transition. Last year, through the Government and through charities, the EEC was using its surpluses for a social purpose. This year it is to be written into EEC regulations that common agricultural policy surpluses will be an instrument of social policy rather than a mere by product of a financial mechanism for the control and development of agriculture. That is a significant development.
The irony is that the concession has been drawn from the Government — they are perhaps not kicking and screaming, but we have argued for it on a number of occasions—at a time when the era of surpluses is almost at an end. As a result of catastrophic climatic conditions which even I would not attribute entirely to the Government, wheat will be in short supply for the first time, the dairy industry expects to pay no superlevy for the first time in several years, creamery sales are 39 per cent. down on last year and there are unlikely to be any additional surpluses of butter or cheese. Moreover, beef production is suffering as a result of quota systems and by 1989 we shall be importing beef. It is ironic that now that surpluses are coming to an end the Commission is moving towards using them for this social purpose.
I think that the Minister was teasing the House, as is his nature, when he seemed to imply that the Government might not proceed with a food distribution policy if the Commission decided to authorise such a scheme. In view of the Government's take-note motion and the political realities that they will face, I believe that they will proceed with the policy because the pressure will force them to do so
We recognise the benefits of the scheme, as we did last year, and we unstintingly praise the efforts of the voluntary sector. In the debate last year, the Minister took issue with some Opposition Members, but I assure him that my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields and I do not believe that last year's scheme should be subject to heavy criticism, despite the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South.
Our view is clearly shared by the Minister. In April this year, in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth), the Minister said
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we should learn lessons from the scheme. I hope that he would not say that it was a complete loss."—[Official Report, 23 April 1987; Vol 114, c. 783.]
That was an honest comment from the Minister. Indeed, he could do little other than take that view, given the publicity that the scheme had received. For example, on 8 February The Sunday Times carried the lurid headline:
Great meat handout is pie in the sky".
A few weeks later The Guardian reported:
DHSS blamed as free food fails to reach needy".
That was followed by The Independent on 6 March saying perhaps most disturbingly of all:
Scramble for free butter turns violent".
Those were the descriptions in the press of last year's scheme, and those were some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South.

Mr. Spearing: If there is to be a scheme of definitions — which, on the face of it, is equitable — will not amounts and quantities also follow? Therefore, the whole logistics, especially when taken in conjunction with a permanent scheme, would take on a different tone. Permanent problems would result from a permanent scheme. Is not that one of the dilemmas?

Mr. Davies: I agree absolutely—and I know that the Minister also agrees. The essence of the debate is that the scheme is to be permanent. It cannot be operated with the assistance of charities, as happened last year, with the Minister saying "So what?" if a few million deliveries of butter go astray or if the charities have to meet a few pounds of extra costs. We are now being asked to institutionalise a system for the dispersal of European surpluses. That new institution requires that we are especially vigilant in our examination of the proposals and that we put these valid points to the Minister.
I wish to put to the Minister a number of specific points on which I hope that he can reassure the House when he replies. Last year, there were criticisms of the quality of food distributed. Certainly in south Wales—and it will not be lost on the Minister that my constituency is Caerphilly—there were a number of complaints about the quality of cheese. It had clearly passed its shelf life and was unfit for human consumption. I understand that that cheese was not out of intervention, but was bought on the market. That is worrying, and I ask the Minister to tell us what steps he will take this year to ensure the quality of food distributed.
I understand that about 50,000 tonnes of beef are in store in this country. I note that the Minister acknowledges that. He will recall that earlier this year the Government agreed to the Commission's proposal to outlaw the production and sale of beef produced using growth hormones. Therefore, that 50,000 tonnes of beef cannot be sold on the open market. It would be quite inappropriate if beef that is not fit for human consumption, not fit to be produced and not fit to be sold on the open market, is now to be given to charities. Do we now have food that is fit for the poor but not fit for the open market? That is an important question, and I hope that the Minister will tell us the Government's attitude.
Much has been said about the costs that the charities had to bear last year. We will not criticise the Minister if he says that, this year, the charities will play some part. I understand the strong feelings expressed by some of my hon. Friends who said that local authorities would have to be involved. The comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South were constructive. He said that local authorities would best be able to identify those in need——

Mr. David Harris: Why?

Mr. Davies: We would have welcomed the hon. Gentleman's contribution to our debate, but he chose not to make it. However, he has asked a question and I will answer it. Despite the ravages of the Government, local authorities still understand the needs of their local communities. They are still able, through their welfare and social services departments and their contacts with the voluntary agencies, to identify those most in need. However, to some extent I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South because I have my doubts about the extent to which they should be involved

in the distribution of food. That is a role well fulfilled by the charities, even though the local authorities have a valid role to play.

Mr. Harris: rose——

Mr. Davies: No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman asked a question and I answered it. He could have made his speech during the debate. On another occasion I will give way to him, but not tonight. I also know that the Minister is anxious to reply to the debate.
I hope that the Minister will give some assurance on the extent to which charities have been involved in the consultations. There were difficulties last year. We will support the Minister if he uses the charities again this year, but as a prerequisite we expect them to be involved in the consultations.
I take issue with the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire. He talked about the subsidy that was given to charities last year. His comment was unfair to the Minister. The Government did not give subsidies to charities. They helped to meet the costs that were quite properly incurred in the distribution of free food to the needy. I understand that they will do so this year. Frankly, to talk about subsidies is not only a gross misrepresentation of the fact, but is a quite deliberate and offensive insult to the recipients of the food and to the thousands of people who were involved in the distribution of it.
I now refer to the way in which the food will be distributed. I understand that it is likely that the food surpluses in this country will involve only beef and butter. They are the commodities that we have in store. Despite some of the claims, particularly those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), we shall not participate in the share-out of the wine lake. This year, the share-out will be restricted to beef and butter. I know that the Minister will assure me that he will examine the matter. Will he assure the House that we will ensure that we get our fair share of the commodities from the European Community? What steps will he take to ensure, as far as possible, an acceptable spread of such commodities throughout the different parts of the country? I am well aware that some counties that were first off the mark last time were those in the south of England—I make no criticism or party political point—and were geared up because of their network of social support. Frankly, they have a network involving the Women's Royal Voluntary Service and the Red Cross. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may mock cynically. It is a fair point. Many deprived communities in the country, where free food needs to be distributed most urgently, do not possess that social network. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that, as far as possible, that distribution applies equally?
Will the Minister state his attitude to individual requirements and the criteria that voluntary organisations and charities will adopt in the distribution of products? For example, it will be quite wrong if the WRVS, in establishing its criteria, determines that one individual is entitled to receive free beef, and the Red Cross or the Royal British Legion, in adopting their criteria, say that that individual is not entitled to it. I do not ask the Minister to lay down guidelines or to dictate. I ask him to state whether he will advise charities that certain broad criteria should be met. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire's comments are fatuous. He


made a speech. Frankly, he did not have the guts to attack his Minister. On this occasion, he did not have the wisdom to support his Minister. In future, if he has comments to make, perhaps he will make them openly and honestly in debate, rather than snipe from a sedentary position. His remarks certainly carry no weight with me. He will find that the Minister is equally dismissive of his comments.

Mr. Forth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies: I have no intention of giving way when I have responded to an intervention which the hon. Gentleman made from a sedentary position. He had an opportunity to make a speech. He has been sniping at my comments. I suspect that he has been elsewhere this evening and has not followed the debate as carefully as he should have. He left the Chamber for a large part of the debate. On those grounds, I shall not give way. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have future opportunities to make his case.
I ask the Minister to give an assurance that the guidelines that I seek will be available to the charities involved.
We have tabled an amendment setting out our position. Given the response of hon. Members to the Minister's opening statement, we are entitled to give the proposals a cautious welcome. The Minister is surrounded by sceptics on his own side. Our view is best expressed by saying that we wish to see the system changed so that surpluses are not produced, but, if there are surpluses, this is the best way of dealing with them. We hope that the new scheme will be an improvement on last year's scheme, and in that expectation, we shall not divide the House.

Mr. Gummer: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thank hon. Members for this evening's helpful debate. Again, I apologise to the Scrutiny Committee for the fact that the debate had to take place in these circumstances, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) will agree that it has been worth having it in advance, rather than in retrospect.
I agree with the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) that there is no such thing as a free lunch, or free food, in the European Community. His comments lead me to remind him that, because, in his terms, we have paid four times over, we should be hesitant about paying for it yet again. One of the difficulties is that if it were shown that the handing out of so-called free food meant that people did not buy food that they would otherwise have bought, and that that food then went into intervention, the British taxpayer would have paid for it yet again. That does not seem to help anybody. We must face this problem, and say that with great care because if we could find a way that avoided it we should take it. That is why I am being sceptical, but not dismissive. I am always hoping that some answer to this central problem can be found, but so far I have not found it.
I shall not follow the hon. Gentleman's general condemnation of the Government. However, when he talks about disadvantage, I remind him that, on average, pensioners' incomes since 1979 have grown twice as fast as those of the population as a whole. I could give a whole series of arguments to answer the points that the hon. Gentleman has put forward, but I must say that one part of his speech was party political rather than helpful.
The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to describe the efforts of the charities as commendable. We are at one on that. However, I hope that he will agree that the efforts of the many civil servants who were involved in making the scheme work as well as it could in the circumstances were also commendable. His hon. Friends have pointed out that there was a feeling of a lack of consultation. However, consultation with the charities took place the day after we were first consulted. We were bounced into the scheme and brought the charities together at 4 o'clock the following afternoon, which was as fast as we could. I apologise, but I do not see how we could have done that any quicker. I hope that our bona fides are supported by the fact that I brought the charities together immediately we knew that there was any possibility of a new scheme. They kindly came in and we discussed the matter.
Opposition Members have asked about the response of the charities. Again, I do not want to avoid the Government's responsibility for making up their mind on these matters. There should be no suggestion that I asked the charities for their opinion, acted on it and then blamed them for it. This is a genuine answer because, as far as I can see, the charities would be extremely reluctant to continue a scheme of the type proposed by the Commission. They feel that it lacks a whole range of extremely important and necessary features. Above all, they feel that it diverts their activities from the things that they should be doing. I do not wish to tie them to that, but at the moment that is their view.

Dr. David Clark: I am grateful for the Minister's response, but will he inform the House whether the charities would feel the same if their distribution and administration costs were met? As I understand it, that was one of the prime reasons why some of the charities felt that they could not go ahead with the scheme.

Mr. Gummer: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept that I try hard to understand what the charities feel about this. I do not think that that is the central issue. Without putting words into their mouths, I think they feel that they are set up for particular purposes. They seek to carry out those activities as well as they can and feel that a permanent scheme of this type would distort the activities in which they are engaged. They may well be prepared to take advantage of the availability of food in certain circumstances, and they would take that into account if they took on extra work or sought to work differently. I understand their feeling that they have a particular role and that, whereas it was possible to respond to the invitation in a one-off emergency, to be institutionalised into a permanent system poses a whole range of new difficulties.
The question then is whether this would be a role for local authorities. Whatever Opposition Members may feel generally towards Conservative Members, they will find it difficult to suggest that I have ever taken an antagonistic view towards local authorities. I am lucky in having two extremely good ones in my area. If they wished to participate I am sure that they would be most helpful in a distribution scheme of this type, but I ask myself whether it would be helpful for them to do so and whether it would not divert them from the job that they do.
I note that the hon. Member for Caerphilly said that he was opposed to local authorities distributing food, and wanted their advice. I can see that argument. The House


must bear in mind that the scheme might divert people doing useful work into doing something less useful. We must consider that. I am sorry that this sounds so critical, but we have experience of people undertaking the work with the best will in the world who still feel that this is not what they should be doing. I think that many local authorities would feel the same.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said that when the charities undertook the work there was a difference in application from one area to another. If some local authorities feel that it is suitable and some do not, if some distribute and some do not, and if some merely give advice and some distribute and give advice, we shall have exactly the same problems unless we force them to do something, but that would mean forcing them to take part in a scheme about which we feel unhappy. Surely there can be no question of giving a special advantage to those who choose to do this in order to avoid any penalties under the rules and not to those who choose to do what local authorities would normally consider more important. That distortion would be extremely difficult to promote.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. Friend is advancing a most constructive argument. Does he accept that local authorities, dealing with both services and housing, so being able to respond to the social service needs of many people, could supply to voluntary organisations the names of those— they are many—who could benefit from the free supply of surplus foods from the EC under this sort of scheme? Does he agree that they could co-operate more positively and constructively with the voluntary organisations, which did a superb job under the scheme that was operated a year ago?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right, but many local authorities did precisely that on that occasion. I am merely suggesting that voluntary bodies may feel that this would be a diversion from their normal activities.
The hon. Member for South Shields talked about involving food retailers. One of the problems that we face is that if there is a permanent scheme and an extensive amount of substitution, the small shopkeepers will be affected and they, after all, are used by the older members of the population. They play an important role in all our constituencies—town and country. There is no doubt that on the last occasion a large proportion of the products that were handed out resulted in people not buying what they would otherwise have bought. It is difficult enough to explain that to the small shopkeeper with narrow profit margins, but then to ask him to join in as a means of distributing the food would require a good deal of public relations over a long period. I wonder whether that would be the right direction in which to go.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) that I, like him, am concerned about the misuse of these products. The difficulty is that if there is a permanent scheme, there is more time in which people can work out ways of misusing it. One of the reasons why there was so little fraud relatively — speaking— during the emergency scheme was that there was so little time in which to organise ways of getting round it. I am much more worried about a permanent scheme in which the wide boys will find all sorts of ways in which to operate. That would make the situation even

worse. It would be almost one of 100 per cent. substitution, and then we would, indeed, be paying five times over instead of the four times that the hon. Member for South Shields mentioned. That, too, worries me.
As for the issue of greed, I do not believe that the scheme creates greed. In some cases it merely brings it out. I am not sure that that would be a key issue in my mind if I were deciding about the scheme, although I might have a theological discussion with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire about that at some time.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) said that the scheme would ease embarrassment. I can see the hon. Gentleman's position. If I felt, in all honesty, that a scheme could be devised whereby, in addition to food already sent, food that would otherwise remain in intervention could be distributed, I agree that that would ease embarrassment and do positive good. The problem is that the present scheme does not do that. Unless we can find a way of doing it, it will make the embarrassment worse.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South is right. He said that if we were not careful there would be more in store when we had finished than at the beginning. He also said that that had happened last time. If so, the reason was partly that more was coming in than was going out, and partly that a large amount of the beef was substituted for beef that would otherwise have been sold. That is difficult to defend and makes for greater, rather than less, embarrassment.
The hon. Gentleman also said that there was a lack of consultation, and there was. I consider that it was not the Government's fault, and I believe that the charities would agree with that. I tried to avoid a lack of consultation by bringing in the charities even before we had had any official notice. I think that the hon. Member for South Shields would agree with that. The minute that there were rumours we discussed with the charities the basis for such a scheme.
My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) made some important points. The scheme was an expensive one for many of the charities, but I remind the House that some charities managed to do their job at a lower cost than others. One of the problems is assessing the real cost. I do not pretend that there is an easy way of doing that. It is another of the many difficult areas. My hon. Friend was right to say that we must confine the costs, designate the authorities and be concerned with accountability. All that makes the scheme even more difficult for charities to be involved, because the more carefully one avoids fraud, and the more one tries to make the scheme operate successfully, the more problems one will lay on the shoulders of the charities. Once there is a permanent scheme, the Public Accounts Committee will seek to ensure that it is properly operated. That will mean the charities doing things for which they are ill-equipped. As the Opposition has suggested that this is not a suitable area in which the local authorities should become wholly involved, it is a difficult problem to overcome.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South was a little unfair. First, he said that the House was in some way remiss in passing the Single European Act. The Single European Act made no difference at all, because this would still have been a majority decision whether or not we had had the Act. Perhaps during his absence from the House he misremembered that. I am entirely in favour of the Single European Act. One of the great views of his


party ought to be the growing together of countries so that they are able to make joint decisions. I find it difficult to understand why he believes so much in democracy in this country, but does not believe in it when it comes to nations working together. His views are extremely old-fashioned and very much out of line with those of most of his Socialist colleagues. The Single European Act does not affect the case. The decision would in any case have been made by majority vote.
It is odd for the hon. Member for Bradford, South to suggest that we should have distributed flour. We would have had to import the bread-making wheat from the rest of the Community, turn it into flour, and distribute it through charities that did not want to distribute it. That is a good reason for not doing it. It is not a question of meanness on the part of the Government, but one of trying to make the thing at least a little more sensible than when the Commission gave it to us.
We would have had to import sugar from Italy to give it away in Britain. I cannot think of a more barmy concept than that. If anything is substitution, it would be to follow the line suggested by the hon. Member for Bradford, South and import sugar from Italy in order to substitute it for sugar sent here by the Third world.

Mr. Cryer: Little Englander.

Mr. Gummer: I am prepared to be narrow on behalf of the poor, arid prepared to be tough when it comes to defending the interests of some of the poorest nations on earth. I will take no seated attacks from the hon. Member for Bradford, South on that issue, because I have a record on that issue that bears examination. Perhaps he would like to refer to it. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has been found wanting and might, therefore, be found more silent.
The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) rightly raised the question of the cold snap and the difficulty with the weather. The problem that he has to face on this issue is that it is not an emergency scheme connected with specific difficulties. It is a permanent scheme and, because of the usual distribution of food, the problem arises of increasing the amount going into intervention because of the substitution. There is also the problem of deciding whether this is a proper use of resources. I cannot easily be convinced that money spent in this way is money best spent. We must ask if this is the way to help the poor, or whether we ought to look for other ways of spending the money, if we have the money to spend. Given its budgetary problems, the Community ought to ask itself whether it has much money to spend.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly said it was an instrument of social policy. I doubt whether it is a very useful instrument of social policy, and I do not know of any area where is has been successful. He said the era of surpluses is at an end. If they are, it is because of policies that the Government have carried through in Europe. I do not think that the surpluses are at an end. There is still a long way to go. I might tease the hon. Member for Caerphilly, but I never tease the House. I am worried about this issue. We should learn lessons from this scheme. So far the lesson that I have learnt is that it must be very different from the last scheme before it can be of any use at all. The hon. Gentleman will remember that no Caerphilly cheese is made in Caerphilly, unless some has suddenly been made.

Mr. Ron Davies: Some is made there.

Mr. Gummer: I am glad that some is now made there, but the cheese that was distributed under the scheme was bought off the market, and I find it difficult to believe that it was different from any other cheese sold on the market.
I must protest about the hon. Gentleman's comments on hormones. He has been eating beef with hormones in it all his life, because any self-respecting animal is filled with hormones. That is what makes the poor old thing wander about, and if it does not have hormones it does not wander. The hon. Gentleman wanders more effectively because of the hormones that are coursing round his body. The minuscule additional number of hormones that one gets from hormone beef make no difference at all. It is only the lunacy of the Common Market that suggests that we should get rid of hormone beef.

It being One and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 ( Exempted Business), to put the Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings.

Amendment negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9138/87 on general rules for the supply of food from intervention stocks for distribution to the most deprived persons in the Community.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(5) (Standing Committees on European Community documents.)

LEGAL EXPENSES INSURANCE

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 5156/82 on legal expenses insurance and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 23rd June 1987; and endorses the Government's intention to proceed in due course with legislation to implement the Directive in consultation with interested parties.

CREDIT INSURANCE

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7194/82 on credit insurance and the Supplementary Explanatory Memoranda submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 16th September 1986 and 11th May 1987; and endorses the Government's intention to proceed in due course with legislation to implement the Directive in consultation with interested parties. — [Mr.Maclean.]

Question agreed to.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)

That the Customs Duties (ECSC) (No. 2) (Amendment No. 10) Order 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 1804), dated 14th October 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st October, be approved.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Question agreed to.

AGRICULTURE

Question proposed,
That Mr. Tim Boswell, Mr. John Carlisle, Mr. David Curry, Mr. Martyn Jones, Mr. Calum A. Macdonald, Mr. Seamus Mallon, Mr. Paul Marland, Mr. Eric Martlew, Mr. Elliot Morley, Mr. Jerry Wiggin and Mrs. Ann Winterton be members of the Agriculture Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox,on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Hon. Members: "Object."

DEFENCE

Question proposed,
That Mr. John Cartwright, Mr. Churchill, Mr. Dick Douglas, Mr. John Evans, Mr. Bruce George, Sir Barney Hayhoe, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Michael Mates, Mr. Jonathan Sayeed, Mr. Neil Thorne and Mr. John Wilkinson be members of the Defence Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox,on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Hon. Members: "Object".

EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND ARTS

Question proposed,
That Mr. David Evennett, Mr. Martin Flannery, Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. Win Griffiths, Mrs. Maureen Hicks, Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson, Mr. Timothy Raison, Mr. Gerry Steinberg, Mr. Jack Thompson, Mr. Malcolm Thornton and Sir Gerard Vaughan be members of the Education, Science and Arts Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Hon. Members: "Object."

EMPLOYMENT

Question proposed,
That Mr. Simon Coombs, Mr. Ken Eastham, Sir Philip Goodhart, Mr. Greville Janner, Mr. Ron Leighton, Mr. lain Mills, Mr. James Paice, Mr. Ernie Ross, Mr. Andrew Rowe, Mr. Lewis Stevens and Mr. David Young be members of the Employment Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Hon. Members: "Object."

Mr. Speaker: I get the impression that, to save the time of the House, I can now put together the Questions on motions 10 to 18 inclusive.

ENERGY

Questions proposed,
That Mr. Michael Brown, Dr. Michael Clark, Mr. Geoffrey Dickens, Mr. Eric Illsley, Mr. Ted Leadbitter, Sir Ian Lloyd, Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse, Mr. Rhodri Morgan, Mr. Peter Rost, Mr. Alex Salmond and Mr. Tony Speller be members of the Energy Committee.

ENVIRONMENT

That Mr. Henry Bellingham, Mr. Paul Boateng, Mr. John Cummings, Mr. Richard Holt, Mr. Andrew Hunter, Mr. Robert B. Jones, Mr. Keith Mans, Mr. Tom Pendry, Mr. Peter Pike, Sir Hugh Rossi and Mr. Robin Squire be members of the Environment Committee.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

That Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mr. Michael Jopling, Mr. David Howell, Mr. Ivan Lawrence, Mr. Jim Lester, Mr. Ted Rowlands, Mr. Peter Shore, Mr. Ian Taylor, Mr. Peter Temple-Morris, Mr. Bowen Wells and Mr. Michael Welsh be members of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

HOME AFFAIRS

That Mr. David Ashby, Mr. Gerald Bermingham, Mr. David Clelland, Miss Janet Fookes, Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. John Greenway, Mr. Ivor Stanbrook, Mr. Keith Vaz, Mr. John Wheeler and Mr. Tony Worthington be members of the Home Affairs Committee.

SOCIAL SERVICES

That Mr. Jerry Hayes, Dr. Lewis Moonie, Marjorie Mowlam, Mr. Terry Patchett, Sir David Price, Mrs. Gillian Shephard, Mr. Roger Sims, the Reverend Martin Smyth. Audrey Wise, Mr. Nicholas Winterton and Mr. Tim Yeo be members of the Social Services Committee

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

That Mr. Joe Ashton, Mr. Malcolm Bruce, Mr. James Cran, Mr. Stan Crowther, Dr. John Gilbert, Sir Anthony Grant, Dr. Keith Hampson, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop, Mr. Barry Porter and Mr. Kenneth Warren be members of the Trade and Industry Committee.

TRANSPORT

That Mr. David Gilroy Bevan, Mr. Sydney Bidwell, Mr. Jim Callaghan, Mr. Derek Conway, Mr.Terry Dicks, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Peter Fry, Mr. David Marshall, Mr. David Mudd and Mr. Neville Trotter be members of the Transport Committee.

TREASURY AND CIVIL SERVICE

That Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Nicholas Budgen, Mr. Neil Hamilton, Mr. Terence L. Higgins, Ms. Joyce Quin, Mr. Giles Radice, Mr. Brian Sedgemore, Mr. John Townend, Mr. John Watts and Mr. David Winnick be members of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee.

WELSH AFFAIRS

That Mr. Nicholas Bennett, Sir Raymond Gower, Mr. Gwilym Jones, Mr. Richard Livsey, Sir Anthony Meyer, Mr. Paul Murphy, Mr. Keith Raffan, Sir John Stradling Thomas, Mr. Dafydd Elis Thomas, Mr. Gareth Wardell and Mr. Alan W. Williams be members of the Welsh Affairs Committee. — [Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Hon. Members: "Object."

Orders of the Day — PETITION

Rating Reform

12 midnight

Mr. Adam Ingram: I wish to present a petition objecting to the poll tax from 3,790 of my constituents. They call for the repeal of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 because they consider that it introduces a system of local taxation that takes no account of the ability of the citizens to afford such a tax. They also consider that it will cause further hardship to those who are already poor.
My constituents further consider that it will redistribute resources away from under-provided areas to areas that are already prosperous. They object to the introduction of a personal computer identification number as an attack on their civil liberties. My constituents call for the repeal of this iniquitous Act, and I give them my full support.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Smoke Detectors

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Mr. Ian McCartney: It gives me great pleasure to introduce this Adjournment debate on an issue relating to fire safety and the promotion of fire safety measures, in this instance, smoke detectors.
I should declare an interest as an honorary adviser to the Greater Manchester civil defence authority. I took up that post on my election to Parliament as I had been a former member of that authority. As a member of that authority one has the harrowing experience, at meeting after meeting, of reading fire reports showing loss of life, horrendous personal injuries and loss of property. Those reports become the all too familiar press headline, "Family wiped out", "Mother trapped with baby", "Father dies trying to rescue children", "The heroism of the fire fighters".
Behind the press headlines are the chilling facts. Each year there are 700 deaths and 7,000 injuries. More than 50 per cent. of fatalities involve the very old or the very young. Do we accept such deaths as inevitable in an age when human kind can harness the power of gas, electricity, coal and paraffin for better living, when the misnamed "pleasure" of smoking and the misuse of matches is so widespread and carelessness can arise with all fuels because of alcohol abuse? I think not.
It is not for me as a Scot, albeit from the safety of the south Lancashire coalfields, to argue that an Englishman's home should not be his castle, but I shall argue for some way in which we can ensure that the castle remains a safe haven rather than a seething cauldron of flame and toxic fumes that all too often ends in tragedy.
Smoke detectors are not a panacea that will dramatically alter the rate of fatalities and imjuries overnight or cut the millions of pounds lost to the economy each year because of fires. They must be seen in context of the flammability of domestic furnishings. I pay credit to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) who, on 1 July this year, introduced a debate on the flammability of domestic furnishings.
It is suggested that 3,000 lives will be lost over the next 10 years because of the flammability of domestic furnishings, and that, from other sources, a further 4,000 lives will be lost. It is in fighting fires involving polyurethane that the role of fire fighters has been changed radically and dramatically. Because of the flash-over point of between two and four minutes and the fact that the estimated arrival time of the fire brigade is between five and eight minutes, all too often the fire brigade goes not to save life but simply to cool down the area, use breathing apparatus and bring out the families.

Mr. Conal Gregory: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene, as well as for his acknowledgment of the Adjournment debate that I introduced some time ago. Does he acknowledge the work that the Department of Trade and Industry has done, particularly my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate and Consumer Affairs? He has gone a stage further by introducing arrangements for a match test for such material as the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Mr. McCartney: Later in the debate I shall give some details of my views on the Government's position on that and in general on their attitude towards smoke detectors. I welcome the movement of the Government, but I shall await the final consultation to see whether that movement has been sufficient for those on both sides of the House who want a radical change.
Even if there is a radical change, we must accept that for the next 15 or 20 years a huge proportion of family homes will have within them combustible materials, which, at a flash-over point of two to four minutes, will still raise the horrendous possibility of a large-scale loss of life annually. Therefore the issues of foam-filled materials and smoke detectors are inextricably linked.
Over the past 10 years the fire services have been well aware of the need to change attitudes to the introduction of new technology—foam technology, ladder technology and telecommunications technology. On that score the fire service has been well served by ACO Bob Graham of Greater Manchester fire authority, the author of "Fire Safety in the Home" and CFO Karron of West Yorkshire, who did a great deal of work on promoting fire detectors in the community.
To be fair to the Government, the Home Office and the Department of Trade and Industry have responded to the pressure. Indeed, on 29 April this year Lord Caithness made a statement on behalf of the Government about fire detectors. He said:
Smoke detectors can give those precious few minutes warning which could make the difference between life arid death.
They can make a valuable contribution to fire safety, but, sadly, too few households know about their benefits arid their relatively low cost. We are lagging behind other countries in their installation and are paying the price, in a horrifying toll of death and injury.
"Lagging behind other countries" is a significant but sad admission. I shall therefore refer to the experiences of Sweden and the United States on smoke detectors.
In 1981 the Swedish Fire Protection Association informed the Government of the day that only 79,000 homes in Sweden had smoke detectors. The association and the Government set themselves a target for 1986 of 60 per cent. of all homes being fitted with smoke detectors—2·3 million homes. They said that it would reduce property damage by 10 per cent. and the death rate by tires by 20 per cent. They also did a cost-benefit calculation, which showed that over 10 years' installation costs would amount to £2·3 million per annum while damage costs would be reduced to £5 million per annum, a net gain of £27 million to the Swedish economy.
The Swedish Government introduced the first stage of the five-year plan in 1982 with a series of television commercials. By Christmas, more than 400,000 devices had been sold. In 1983, almost 50 per cent. of one-family homes in Sweden had smoke detectors, and insurance companies started a programme of distributing smoke detectors free to policy holders. In 1984, about 700,000 smoke detectors were sold. One hundred lives had been saved directly because of the introduction of the device, and 45 per cent. of the population was covered by smoke detectors. In 64 per cent. of one family-households, smoke detectors had been introduced, while 83 per cent. had no problems with the alarms. Within 24 months, the Swedish Government were well on their way to reaching their 1986 target.
The problem in the United States, with its different federal and state legislatures, is more complex and we do not have time to discuss it now. But I recommend the House and the Minister to read "Fire Safety in the Home" by Bob Graham, especially pages 25 to 31, which set out in detail the experience of the Greater Manchester fire authority's investigations into the American experience of smoke detectors. The new legislation introduced at federal and state level has cut by half the risk of death by fire. Most small fires are now dealt with at source by the householder, and fire safety awareness has increased dramatically. The introduction of such safety measures into households will increase people's awareness, and there is a new consciousness in people's reactions and attitudes to fire safety.
The installation of free smoke detectors in the homes of low-income families was the most important lesson learnt by the United States authorities. Those who need protection most are those with the least means to obtain it. The Government must tackle that central issue. Those who are most in need must not be left to the last if the Government decide to introduce a national scheme.
I welcome the views expressed by the Home Office and Department of Trade and Industry officials at the Fire Protection Association meeting on 12 June. They expressed support for several key elements: first, a pilot television advertising scheme; secondly, a home safety check scheme; and, thirdly, free provision for groups most at risk. I congratulate the Home Office and the Labour-controlled Tameside borough council on the recently announced pilot scheme to introduce smoke detectors to about 5,000 council homes at a cost of £50,000. My fire authority will monitor the success of the scheme, and we should wish everyone concerned in it well, in terms of its introduction and its effect in reducing the number of fires, fatalities and serious injuries.
The most recent data show that 83 per cent. of home fire deaths could have been influenced by the introduction of smoke detectors. In 48 per cent. of deaths, the time between ignition and the discovery of the fire was estimated at a staggering 30 minutes. There is no doubt that an early warning system would have played a significant part in saving many of those who perished.
I hope that the Minister will discuss the promotion of such a scheme. I wish to mention seven measures—I call them the magnificent seven. The first relates to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his next Budget. Will the Minister ask the Chancellor to reduce to zero, VAT on the sale of smoke detectors, and to consider the possibility of providing resources for free adaption to families on supplementary benefit or low incomes? Will he ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to consider changes in building regulations for new build and refurbishment? This is not an attempt to introduce more red tape. It costs, on average, £35,000 to £40,000 to build a new house and between £12,000 and £15,000 to refurbish an old one. With that sort of expenditure, it would seem common sense to introduce in the building regulations an awareness that, when that money is spent, included within that expense is a facility to include smoke detectors in redevelopments and refurbishments.
Thirdly, much money is spent by local government through improvement and repair grants on older

properties. When improving and repairing properties it would seem sensible if cognisance were given to the introduction of smoke detectors.
Fourthly, I would like the Minister to look at local authorities' HIP allocations for refurbishment and rewiring programmes. In my constituency, for example, £3 million is currently being spent on house improvement on one of our run-down estates. Again, it would seem sensible if, included in that expenditure, was an allocation for smoke detectors. It is precisely in that sort of estate where major problems arise—where many fires, loss of life and injuries occur. In such large schemes it would seem sensible to include fire safety measures.
Fifthly, the Government are placing great stress on the role of housing associations. I would like to see housing association funds used to encourage housing associations to include smoke detectors in their refurbishment programmes.
Sixthly, the most difficult area in which to legislate is multi-occupancy dwellings. We need fire prevention regulations that require owners to install smoke detectors to a standard that one would expect in an ordinary dwelling house, but with an additional row frame sprinkler system to be fitted as part of a fire containment programme. In the United States there has been a dramatic decrease in fires in multi-occupancy properties because of fire containment programmes, at little cost but saving many lives and a great deal of property.
The seventh issue is security and insurance. The Government should exert pressure on companies to give discounted premiums to householders who fit smoke detectors. The Association of County Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities the Child Accident Prevention Trust, the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers' Association and the Fire Brigades Union would generally support my views.
In conclusion, I ask the Government to reconvene the discussions held on 12 June with the Fire Protection Association so that priority can be given to the preparation of a five-year programme with targets similar to the schemes introduced in Sweden and the United States with such dramatic results. To do anything else is to be a handmaiden to the continuing unacceptable levels of carnage that currently exist around the nation's firesides.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) for raising this subject and for the brief contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory).
I appreciate that the hon. Member for Makerfield has wide experience in this area. I acknowledge that fact and pay tribute to him for the work that he has done. He is right in saying that recent statistics produced by the Home Office show that about 700 people are killed in fires in the home every year and another 7,000 are injured. We believe that many of those deaths and injuries could be avoided if early warning of fire could be given while there was still a chance of escaping from the premises. It may interest the hon. Gentleman to know, if he does not already, that the 700 figure that he quoted has been constant over the past few years, but that the 7,000 injured figure has increased.
We believe that smoke detectors could help, but the potential benefits are not simple to assess. Fire conditions such as smoke behaviour and detection are especially


complex and there may be equal or greater benefits to be derived from emphasising normal fire precautions, practice and personal vigilance. The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that fire brigades throughout the country have played a significant part in increasing public awareness.
It cannot be assumed that one smoke detector in every home would give adequate warning of all house fires. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman knows of the joint research project that the Home Office is planning with the Tameside metropolitan borough council and the Greater Manchester county fire service, under which it is hoped to install smoke detectors in more than 5,000 homes in the Tameside area.
The neighbourhoods and dwellings selected for installations will be on a random basis to reflect as wide a cross-section of the community as possible. I listened to what the hon. Gentleman said about those who are on low incomes, and many of these people will be covered by the pilot scheme to which I have referred. The results of the scheme will be carefully monitored over a three-year period to ascertain the effectiveness of smoke detectors in alerting occupants to the outbreak of fire and reducing casualties. The proposed initiative will not offer the relevant households any guarantee of safety from fire in the home, although it will undoubtedly provide significant early warning potential if a fire occurs. Some valuable lessons are expected to be learnt from the experience of those who may be involved in the scheme. The Home Office is actively considering the possibility of a similar project elsewhere.
The hon. Gentleman has referred to building regulations, and he will be aware that currently they do not require the installation of smoke detectors. However, my Department is conducting a technical survey that will include a review of all the regulations. The consultation document that we issued recognised that there was scope for allowing a trade-off between active measures for fire protection, such as sprinklers and smoke detectors, and current passive measures such as structural fire resistance and compartmentation.Trade-offs will allow the degree of compartmentation or perhaps other matters now required by the regulations to be relaxed if active measures are used.

Mr. McCartney: Is this trade-off to be something similar to that which has been introduced in the United States, where the authorities, in active co-operation with the construction industry, are offering alternative building regulations? In some instances, compartments are most advisable in new constructions and in others smoke detectors and other measures are to be recommended. Will the trade-off be similar to that?

Mr. Trippier: My answer must be in two parts. First, the review to which I have referred is still at an early stage. We are seeking advice and opinions from everyone who is involved. We shall take full cognisance of what the hon. Gentleman has said; I am sure that that will impress him. Secondly, we must be careful to try to strike the right balance between deregulation and increased regulation. We have often believed that increased regulation, especially in the building industry, can act as a disincentive to enterprise. We must balance that consideration with the safety factor, which the hon. Gentleman has rightly dealt with at considerable length. It is our purpose to achieve the right balance, and we shall study all these matters and make comparisons with the United States.
For the moment, the possibility of trade-offs is being considered for buildings such as offices and shops which are covered by legislation for continuing control when the buildings are occupied. In domestic buildings, continuing control is a problem. Domestic smoke detectors can be simpler and cheaper than commercial types. They are mostly self-contained devices and they are often powered by batteries. There is concern about the lack of maintenance of such systems and the possibility of misuse.
Domestic smoke detectors are meant to be fix-and forget types that do not need much maintenance. The manufacturers thought that it should suffice to test the detectors by pressing the test button at monthly intervals. However, that was not enough. According to research in the United States, one third of installed domestic detectors in Dallas, Texas are not in working order, mainly because they have not been maintained properly. Detectors may suffer from an accumulation of dust and so on, so regular inspection and occasional cleaning are necessary. That concerns me, just as it will concern the hon. Gentleman.
Nevertheless, the desirability and cost-effectiveness of using smoke detectors for domestic buildings needs to be seriously examined. Any reservations about continuing control and misuse have to be balanced against the undoubted advantage of early fire detection assisting with life safety. To that end, my Department is currently undertaking a study of the potential of automatic smoke detection as a means of improving life safety in residential buildings.
We are considering the research that has already taken place in the United Kingdom and overseas and propose to move to an experimental programme which will examine the performance of various types of smoke detection tinder different fire conditions. However, building regulations apply only to new dwellings or dwellings subject to significant structural alteration. We have never imposed requirements retrospectively on buildings in single family occupation — whether owner-occupied or rented. Fire safety is no exception to that rule.

Mr. McCartney: I understand the Minister's point about the difficulties involved. However, when it comes to refurbishment, authorities have an obligation to agree a schedule of works and at that point, there may be a way round the problem. In providing grant it could be specified that the schedule of works must include a requirement to include smoke detection measures.

Mr. Trippier: It would be wrong if I said that we would ignore that point. We can certainly consider it while conducting our pilot scheme in the greater Manchester area.
The hon. Gentleman referred to resources for local authorities to fit smoke detectors. The local authorities' housing investment programme allocations are largely distributed in relation to a number of basic indicators of need—for example, to take account of housing stock condition and the need for renovation. These do not specifically include a measure of need for smoke detectors. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how that could be done. However, it is for local authorities to determine their spending priorities within the resources available to them and as the House heard last Tuesday, gross provision for local authorities' expenditure on housing has been increased for 1988–89 and for the third consecutive year to over£3 billion.
In April this year we published a revised edition of the booklet "Smoke Detectors in the Home", which is available to the public, free of charge, from local fire brigades. I see that the hon. Gentleman has it. I am impressed to discover that about 658,000 copies of the booklet have been given out in the past six months, along with a further 12,000 copies of a shorter leaflet on the subject.
To increase public awareness of the importance of these devices a pilot television advertising campaign is planned in the Tyne Tees television area to promote better awareness of the value of smoke detectors. The success of that campaign will have to be monitored and if, as is hoped, this demonstration is successful, consideration will be given to extending it nationally. No doubt the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.
My Department has already advised that the costs of providing any necessary means of escape from fire may be acceptable for improvement grant purposes. In the case of houses in multiple occupation, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, special grant is available towards the cost of such works. It is for local authorities to decide whether the provision of smoke detectors and alarms could be included as eligible works in any particular case to bring a property to the relevant standard. However, in the Department's view, it would not be appropriate for such works to attract grant unless they formed part of a wider scheme of improvement. Quite apart from the statutory provisions, it would clearly not be cost effective for grants to be assessed in respect of works costing only a few pounds and works which are unrelated to the basic condition of the property.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Would grants for smoke detectors be made available to homes that were considered particularly vulnerable to fire? There are what are called Spooner houses with timber frames in Heath in my constituency. Within the past three years there has been a fatality—three people were involved—and a fire gutted such a house. In such circumstances it might be appropriate if smoke detectors were installed. Will the improvement grant system relate to such

buildings? Has anything emerged from the experiments under the Tameside scheme to direct assistance towards homes that are expected to be especially vulnerable?

Mr. Trippier: Nothing in the Tameside scheme deals with home improvement grants. I think that the hon. Member for Makerfield would acknowledge that. In answer to the first question, such grants may be appropriate, but there could not be access to a home improvement grant unless it was for a wider scheme of improvement. We have to devise a system whereby it would be cost effective for grants to be assessed. Obviously, that would be extremely difficult in relation to work that would cost only a small sum.

Mr. McCartney: rose——

Mr. Trippier: With great respect, I have only a minute left to reply. The hon. Gentleman has asked me several questions and I shall try to deal with all of them. I shall answer by letter those that I miss because I have allowed so many interventions.
The hon. Member for Makerfield asked about zero-rating of smoke detectors. Obviously that is a question for my hon. Friend the Paymaster General. I shall pass the hon. Gentleman's points on to him. I shall draw the attention of my hon. Friends in the Department of Trade and Industry and in the Home Office the hon. Gentleman's point about insurance discounts on premiums.
The main thrust of the hon. Gentleman's comments concerned the use of smoke detectors in homes, whether they are owner occupied or tenanted. The traditional view has been that people in existing dwellings occupied by a single family are generally best able to secure their own safety without the need for legislation. We shall have to consider that point. It is obviously difficult for us to enforce this form of legislation mandatorily. How does one police it? I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I gave him earlier—his points will be taken into account in all our deliberations.

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock on Monday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes to One o'clock.